[OSM-legal-talk] Licence brief/Use Case - final call for comments

[MJ Ray]

"Peter Miller" <peter.miller at itoworld.com> wrote:
> The Brief - Does anyone strongly disagree with any aspects of the brief?

I feel that the above question should never appear in a call for
comments: no one person can speak for everyone else.  It's very much
an "anyone feel like being shouted at?" question.

However, I'll stick my neck out: I don't agree with the list in point
1)2. which seems to permit non-machine-readable changesets, while not
permitting a CD in the box with a hardware device containing the
derived dataset.  Those two cases should be the other way around:
allow accompanying datasets outside the end-user experience; and forbid
non-machine-readable changesets if the original dataset is
machine-readable.

> Are there any ways we could make it stronger and better?

1) "should be also made available" is unclear and clunky - perhaps
"should be available" is sufficient?  Similarly all other "made
available"s.

2) What is "similar"?  Is this a backdoor?

3)b) "licence" should be "license" - even in English English, the verb
has a s.  Use of "protects" is ambiguous and inappropriate - "covers"?

5) Whose "fair-use" rules?  The USA's?  The pretty-minor UK ones?

> If so can we hear about
> the issues in the next few days so we can try to accommodate them?

See above.

I have not time to review the use cases at this point.  Sorry.
-- 
MJ Ray (slef)
Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small
worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
(Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237