[OSM-legal-talk] Factual Information License and Produced Works?

[Richard Fairhurst]

80n wrote:
> As far as I know there has been no attention paid to the FIL.  It 
> was grabbed at the last minute from here
> http://www.opencontentlawyer.com/open-data/open-data-commons-factual-info-licence/
> I don't know whether or not it has been reviewed by Clark Asay but I've 
> not seen any evidence to suggest that it has.
>
> In my opinion the FIL is much more important than the ODbL and yet it 
> has had very little attention.

As you know (and without wanting to reopen Saturday's argument) I don't
believe that users are intended to sign up to the FIL. I believe that
they're intended to sign up to the ODbL, and that each user is viewed as
contributing a database of content to the wider OSM database, the individual
"atoms" of which are licensed as FIL to recognise that they are,
essentially, facts. (One could argue that, coincidentally, the changeset
model being adopted with 0.6 makes the conceptual leap to "database" very
easy indeed.)

Clearly from Saturday's postings you disagree. Nonetheless the very fact
that there is some uncertainty about this merits a clarification, ideally
both from Jordan and these Wilson Sonsini chaps.

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Factual-Information-License-and-Produced-Works--tp22286008p22286647.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.