[Osmf-talk] License Status III

James Livingston doclivingston at gmail.com
Sat Dec 5 14:08:43 UTC 2009

On 05/12/2009, at 11:43 PM, Mike Collinson wrote:
> Agreed. I think there are two major options. The first is to be very clear that the "Accept" is the bit that has legal force and that the rest is declarative (not sure that is the right word) without legal force. The contributor is simply flagging their belief. Any suggestions on phrasing that without losing the original intent welcome. Perhaps it should be much shorter. 
> The other option is to indeed allow individuals to allow their data, and only their data, to be potentially available under a formalised "PD" arrangement or license like CC0 as you suggest ...

I don't really have a preference either way, but being clear which it is would be good. When I see one bit that is legally binding, I'd assume it all is unless it's clear that part of it isn't - but that's just me.

> ... it would give continuum to the PD template on wiki user pages[1]. BUT I am not sure what actual practical value it has beyond a motherhood statement, and the primary focus at the moment should be on fixing the current license via consensus and not opening up a new war!

Yes, we don't need more arguments now.

Maybe the best option would be to make it clear that the "PD" bit is just advisory. At some later stage, after we get ODbL sorted out and everyone has had a rest, we could send something to everyone who chose that option offering them a more legal version.

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list