[OSM-legal-talk] Process for agreeing the new licence

Peter Miller peter.miller at itoworld.com
Mon Oct 6 17:26:24 BST 2008





> -----Original Message-----
> From: legal-talk-bounces at openstreetmap.org [mailto:legal-talk-
> bounces at openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Sebastian Spaeth
> Sent: 05 October 2008 15:28
> To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
> Subject: [Spam] Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Process for agreeing the new licence
> 
> Peter Miller wrote:
> > Richard: Can I assume that you are in agreement with the 'brief brief'
> or do
> > you want to suggest any changes? We really don't want people to stay
> silent
> > now and then raise issues if we produce a licence that delivers on
> exactly
> > that description.
> 
> I like the way CC (used to?) present their license. they basically had
> three tabs that said "machine readable form" "legal mumbalese" and
> "human understandable" with the last being what the brief brief is.
>
> At least this is how I remember their website from a view years ago.
>
I haven't heard of "legal mumbalese"; sounds good. I signed up to one
service that suggested I might like to read their 'fascinating legal
flotsam'!

Yes; that is how the CCbySA site works. The bit in my brief that is not is
brackets is the brief, and hopefully we can then encode the rest (in
italics) in reasonably clear mumbalese or possibly add it as an annotation
to the legal stuff. It will be hard to make the legal text both work and be
readable - imho, it isn't good in that respect yet.

Here is the summary version of cc by sa 2.0
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/

And here is the legal flotsam version...
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/legalcode


 
Peter


> spaetz
> 
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk





More information about the legal-talk mailing list