[Osmf-talk] License Status III
james.fee at gmail.com
Sat Dec 5 18:57:20 UTC 2009
My small mind still can't grasp the purpose of question #2. Either I
accept ODbL as the new license or I rejected it and then more on. The PD
question is one I would like to see formalized more within the structure,
but I'm not sure it is relevant to "replacing" CC-by-SA with ODbL.
A far more interesting question to me would be:
"I reject ODbL, but I am not happy with CC-by-SA".
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
> Gervase Markham wrote:
> > Let's start with "Accept;". That shows it's like the option above in
> > How about:
> > "Accept; furthermore I grant permission for any subsequent license
> >> 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 ...
> > With the above wording, that would be done by the OSMF stating that the
> > contributions of all those who had ticked the middle option were now
> > available under CC0.
> I think this is problematic because the contributor agreement already
> contains a clause about allowing OSMF to change the license (albeit
> within a certain envelope). People would probably mix the two up, tick
> the middle box, then shout "treachery!" if this leads to their content
> becoming CC0.
> Perhaps we could do something like:
> ( ) I accept.
> ( ) I accept. In addition, I publicly declare that all my OSM
> contributions are in the public domain (or the nearest equivalent in my
> country's law) anyway, and this means you can distribute them under any
> license you want.
> ( ) I refuse.
> Frederik Ramm ## eMail frederik at remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the osmf-talk