[Osmf-talk] License Status III

Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org
Sat Dec 5 13:19:38 UTC 2009


James Livingston wrote:
> I like the idea behind it, but I think that you'd *definitely* want
> some fine tuning of the middle option. As I think I mentioned in an
> earlier post, some jurisdictions don't allow you to just say "oh, my
> work is in the public domain", which is why there is now a "Creative
> Commons Zero" licence. It's probably going to open up a whole other
> argument, but should be use that license to have something like "My
> contributions are under the disjunction of ODbL and CC0, and I accept
> the contributor terms" with a note that CC0 is basically "public
> domain" that works for the whole world. I'm sure some people will
> have an issue with it not actually being public domain though.

You are right in saying that there is no PD in some parts of the world, 
and you are also right in saying that this is important to some. There 
in fact LOTS of people who seem to have made it their #1 hobby to point 
this out to anyone who carelessly asserts that his work is in the public 
domain, like myself.

My usual response to this is: "I know but PD is an easy term anyone 
understands. The proper term for many European legislations would 
probably be 'I grant anyone an unrestricted, perpetual, irrevocable 
license to use my work in any way.' I doubt, however, that if I say 
something is PD and someone else uses it and I then sue him saying 'ha 
ha, I said PD but that was a trick, you should have known that PD does 
not exist here', that I could make solid legal case from this."

As things stand, I believe that a statement saying "I consider my work 
PD anyway" or something to that effect is totally sufficient. We don't 
require a legally watertight statement on that because nobody plans to 
make OSM a PD project anyway. (Sadly.)


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list