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

[Anthony]

On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 5:03 AM, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
>> 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".
>
> Do you think they are also distancing themselves from the position
> that scientific data should be licensed CC0?  Mike's comments seemed
> to imply that they were sticking by that, and I find it hard to see
> how cartographic facts are not scientific data.

Personally I'm hoping for a CC-BY-SA which states explicitly that it
does not cover unoriginal facts and that it only covers the expression
half of the idea/expression divide.  This would level the playing
field between different jurisdictions, while remaining a "pure grant
of permission" and without resorting to "imposing extra restrictions
on people beyond what the law specifies".