[OSM-legal-talk] LWN article on license change and Creative Commons

[Anthony]

On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 5:03 AM, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Anthony wrote:
>>
>> Strongly agree.  Whether started and/or spread by CC, OSM, both, or
>> neither, there definitely seems to be a common misconception that OSM
>> is simply a database of facts,
>
> Well I for one still believe that OSM is aiming to be a database of facts.
>
>> and that therefore what's best for a
>> database of facts is best for OSM.
>
> I think that the misconception from which CC is now distancing themselves is
> that "data should be licensed CC0", not "OSM is a databae of facts".

Alright, so, here's what they've said:

"We occasionally encounter a misimpression that CC licenses can’t be
used for data and databases, or that we don’t want CC licenses to be
used for data and databases. This is largely our fault"

"Data and databases are often copyrightable. When licensed under any
of our licenses, the license terms apply to copyrightable data and
databases, requiring adaptations that are distributed be released
under the same or compatible license terms, for example, when a
ShareAlike license is used."

"CC licenses can and should be used for data and databases, right now
(as they have been for 8 years) — with the important caveat that CC
3.0 license conditions do not extend to “protect” a database that is
otherwise uncopyrightable."