[OSM-legal-talk] public transport routing and OSM-ODbL

[Anthony]

On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemed.net>wrote:

>
> Liz wrote:
> > Anything this contrived and complex that the potential users can't sort
> > it out fails the usability test.
>
> There are only three possible data licences that aren't complex:
>
> 1. You may do anything you like with the data. (=PD)
>
> 2. You may do anything you like with the data. We ask you to be nice and
> credit us, and to release any data you mix up with it. (=PD + Science
> Commons-like community norms)
>
> 3. This data is for your own personal use only. Anything else, you have to
> ask us. Sign on the dotted line to consent to this contract, and we'll let
> you access the data. (=proprietary)
>
> Anything else has to be complex in order to apply across wildly different
> jurisdictions. There ain't no Berne Convention for data and there is
> remarkably little case law, especially relating to a database with so many
> authors. You simply cannot write an open data licence which is legally
> enforceable the world over without some complexity. It's not ODbL's fault -
> it's the inevitable result of the OSM community not managing to agree to 1
> or 2.


There are levels of complexity, though.  CC-BY-SA would be much more
straightforward here, as there is no requirement to release anything you
don't want to release.

If I were advising that public transport operator I'd recommend they fork
off a CC-BY-SA version of the database.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20100710/c8406c94/attachment.html>