[OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back

Simon Poole simon at poole.ch
Thu Aug 11 08:56:41 BST 2011

Am 11.08.2011 09:38, schrieb ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen:
> ...
> It's the necessity of a license that has never been discussed about.
> The need for a license has always been granted, and the discussion
> only is about what license.

A license is necessary because we legally need to allow our users to use 
our data,
the license could be CC0, but still a license.

Any amount of waffling will not make IPR laws go away, we simply need to 
with them.

> CC-BY-SA is well known, respected (due to the earlier), and their newest
> version
> includes support for data(bases) (that what I was told). OdBL is new,
> unknown
> and there is no reason OSM should be the first to explore a uncertain
> path.
> Using a wellknown and respected system enhances it's validity and
> reduces the amount
> of specialists that are needed to interpret it's meaning.
> (But I still prefer a full CC0 or PD license situation)

They may produce a version of CC-by-SA that will include provisions for 
databases. AFAIK
we are years away from that materializing (nobody has ruled out changing 
the license in
the future to CC-by-SA X.X, that's the reason that the CTs implement a 
mechanism for doing
exactly that).

And again, no amount of waffling will make the EU database directive go 
away, we need
contributor terms and a license that take the existing IPR law situation 
in to account,
not make believe stuff.


More information about the legal-talk mailing list