[OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass

Rob Myers rob at robmyers.org
Fri Jul 16 09:55:49 BST 2010


On 07/16/2010 12:26 AM, TimSC wrote:
 >
> Not to mention the notes that accompanied the vote
> were unashamedly pro-ODbL, despite Creative Commons criticizing the
> ODbL.

Science Commons's views on the ODbL are not shared by OKFN, who seem to 
have a better understanding of data law.

> (different people and areas have different licensing situations). I
> might even license my previous data to ODbL in a deal to get that up and
> running. Share alike (ODbL) is just too complex to be workable (Creative
> Commons agrees with me). Of course, it would not be as comprehensive as
> an SA-licensed OSM, but it would be more legally predictable.

I have no confidence in Science Commons's evaluation of other licences 
when they won't even admit that CC0 has the word "licence" in it.

It would be a bigger change from BY-SA to CC0 (CC0 is the only workable 
international "public domain dedication" system) than from BY-SA to ODbL.

ODbL *is* complex and I do sometimes worry that it puts the cart before 
the horse in terms of protecting users of data from restrictions. But 
there *are* such restrictions around the world, and OSM exists for the 
freedom of all its users.

- Rob.




More information about the legal-talk mailing list