[OSM-legal-talk] ODbL for the DB; what about the contents?

[Iván Sánchez Ortega]

El Jueves, 9 de Octubre de 2008, Simon Ward escribió:
> In the preamble for the (old) ODbL draft, it advised that it should be
> used with another licence for contents, the ODbL being designed to
> protect database rights.

Yeah, the Factual Information License. I suppose that the idea is to enforce 
the ODbL + FIL license duo.

> I believe many contributions would deserve some protection in their own
> right, they’re not simply “facts”.  How will this be handled?

Well, my point of view is that individual bits of OSM data are indeed facts. 
Could you ellaborate some use case where some piece of OSM data would require 
some protection on its own?


-- 
----------------------------------
Iván Sánchez Ortega <ivan at sanchezortega.es>

I must have a prodigious quantity of mind; it takes me as much as a
week sometimes to make it up.
		-- Mark Twain, "The Innocents Abroad"
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20081009/e223cb79/attachment.pgp>