[OSM-legal-talk] The OSM licence: where we are, where we're going
crschmidt at crschmidt.net
Mon Jan 7 22:15:56 GMT 2008
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 09:58:43PM +0000, Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> Christopher Schmidt wrote:
> | On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 09:35:19PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> |> PD -
> |> pros - easy to implement, legally trivial, does not require
> |> policing, compatible (on the usage side) with any other data
> | Ignoring the fact that under US law, it's impossible for individuals to
> | place copyrighted material into the public domain? Ignoring the fact
> | that many countries have no concept of 'public domain'?
> AFAIK, legally, the words "Public Domain" means the things that cannot
> be protected with copyright, and in most places you can't "make things
> public domain", they either are public domain or they are not.
> However, this doesn't mean you can't make things available for free with
> the condition that you disclaim all legal responsibility for further
> reuse. That would be stupid. I wouldn't be allowed to send you this
> e-mail unless you paid me money for it or something. I think it's well
> understood that when we talk about public domain on this list, this is
> what we mean.
In which case, you're placing something under some legal statement that
ensures this for you -- perhaps which one you're using doesn't make a
difference. If that's the case, I withdraw my previous complaints
regarding lack of ability to do what Frederik was discussing, and
apologize for my tone. (I've not participated in osm-legal-talk
discussions for the most part because I fear being wrong -- as I have
been several times already with just one email!)
> |> CC -
> |> pros - no loss of data, copyleft "spirit" remains intact, world
> |> becomes better place, legal requirement to give stuff back to
> |> OSM
> | Er, CC? I didn't see Richard proposing the use of CC... Instead, there
> | was a proposal of using a different community-targeted open data
> | license...
> Both of you have said CC without mentioning which of the 13 CC licenses
> ~ you are referring to. This one is probably my favorite:
Well, that's because I don't mean *any* of them :) I mean the Open
Content licenses, which are not (I don't think?) CC licenses.
None of this changes the fact that I think OSM pursuing a copyleft
scheme under the licenses discussed in the blog post is more inline with
OSM spirit as widely expressed by the community, in my opinion,
than pursing a public domain style dedication.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the legal-talk