[OSM-legal-talk] [OSM Fork] Re: Multiple license declaration

[Sam Vekemans]

Hi,

On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Jim Brown <jim at cloudmade.com> wrote:
> > My suspicion is that a system where each user can choose a different
> licence (or set of licences) for their contribution would either fall apart
> (as some entities would need to be rolled back to the last version
> compatible with the current use case and other items would co-exist under
> different licences as different entities in the db).
>
> I mostly agree with this, but I think it could possibly work with
> forward compatible licenses (e.g. PD -> CC-BY -> CC-BY-SA).
>

Agreed,
Tim,
i think that the licence choices should certainly be listed in the correct
order
http://timsc.dev.openstreetmap.org/extralicenses/

PD - is the most open,
Public Domain Declaration<http://timsc.dev.openstreetmap.org/extralicenses/details.php?declare=pd>
 [image: No Limits]
 followed by
Creative Commons Zero License (CC0 1.0
Universal)<http://timsc.dev.openstreetmap.org/extralicenses/details.php?declare=cc0>
 [image: Creative Commons] <http://creativecommons.org/>[image:
Preferred][image:
No Limits]
 followed by
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY
3.0)<http://timsc.dev.openstreetmap.org/extralicenses/details.php?declare=ccby>
 [image: Creative Commons] <http://creativecommons.org/>[image: Attribution]
followed by
Open Data Commons Attribution License
v1.0<http://timsc.dev.openstreetmap.org/extralicenses/details.php?declare=odc-by>
 [image: Attribution]
followed by
Dummy License<http://timsc.dev.openstreetmap.org/extralicenses/details.php?declare=dummy>
followed by
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA
2.0)<http://timsc.dev.openstreetmap.org/extralicenses/details.php?declare=ccbysa>
 [image: Creative Commons] <http://creativecommons.org/>[image:
Attribution][image:
Sharealike]
followed by
Open Database License (ODbL) v1.0/Database Contents License (DbCL)
v1.0<http://timsc.dev.openstreetmap.org/extralicenses/details.php?declare=odc-odbl>
 [image: Attribution][image: Sharealike]


Or maybe that's not the correct order... but close :)
Although in some cases it might be difficult to differentiate... at least it
becomes known to the 'community' exactly what the intentions are for each
user.
Just as the ODBL.de map yes/no is created, a map showing which
users prefer which licence can be created.  A cool colour-coded map. :)

Obviously, not a binding agreement (sadly) and almost a lost-cause for OSM)
but for the other maps we would like to know this information.   And
everyone would like to see, just how many want of each licence.   Then we
can make arrangements for those left out.

In other words, knowing if you sitting in a city of odbl / share-alike /
 ccBY or PD people... then you have a clear choice to make..... If you are a
minority, then there are clear options for you already.  (CommonMap.org is
alive and kicking BTW). ... then locally mapping meetings can be had to help
sort out the data into it's various piles.

Cheers,
Sam


>
> In fact, it's kind of already working that way (TIGER is PD, some
> other imports are CC-BY, OSM is CC-BY-SA).  There just aren't very
> good tags for it.
>
> For incompatible licenses though, I think the better solution is to
> have separate databases.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20110626/4a7283ab/attachment-0001.html>