[OSM-legal-talk] [talk] New site about the license change

[Anthony]

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 2:25 AM, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 11/17/10 04:26, Anthony wrote:
>>
>> They left what process?  The goal of the process was not to find a
>> license like the ODbL.  The goal of the process was to address the sui
>> generis database right within the CC framework.
>
> This is not a contradiction.

I never said it was a contradiction.

> The ODbL could well have been "the way to address data in the CC framework".

It could have been, if the ODbL were acceptable to CC.  But it wasn't.
 And it wasn't the goal of the process.

> I'd avoid talking specifically of the
> "sui generis database right" because that was clearly not an issue in the
> beginning; the issue they tried to solve was that "no one understood the
> legal aspects of data very clearly, no one could figure out an algorithm for
> when copyright applied and when it didn't, and everyone wanted a solution."

The solution to that problem doesn't require changing the license at
all, does it?

> I'm not a CC insider; I have my knowledge mainly from stuff that John
> Wilbanks has published. The above quote is from
> http://blogs.nature.com/wilbanks/2007/12/ which tells a story that starts in
> October 2006.

Thanks.