[Osmf-talk] License with or without virus
mike at ayeltd.biz
Wed Dec 9 08:05:21 UTC 2009
At 03:53 AM 9/12/2009, Mike Collinson wrote:
>At 10:50 PM 8/12/2009, 80n wrote:
>>On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 9:38 PM, SteveC <<mailto:steve at asklater.com>steve at asklater.com> wrote:
>>Taking a few points:
>>On Dec 8, 2009, at 2:33 PM, 80n wrote:
>>> Not one single case has been presented where the intent of the CC BY-SA license has been abused.
>>It took what, 3 decades or something for the GPL to be tested in court. You want to wait for that, or be proactive?
>>In the meantime we have plenty of people avoiding OSM because of all the ambiguities, stretching back to ITN and before.
>>ITN is an example of CC BY-SA being effective. ITN chose not to abuse the license and did not use our data.
>"OpenStreetMap creates and provides free geographic data such as street maps to anyone who wants them. The project was started because most maps you think of as free actually have legal or technical restrictions on their use, holding back people from using them in creative, productive, or unexpected ways."
>A legal text should never lose site of the principle aims.
Or indeed ... A legal text should never lose sight of the principal aims. Beware late night typing. :-}
Again, on a personal note. If we have come up with something that just prevents this incident happening again, then the whole effort will have been worth it for me.
ITN is a major British national News station. OpenStreetMap had simply the best map of Baghdad. But they never got seen by the British public on legal advice. Our license is ambiguous on whether we want all OSM contributors to be listed on every map. It is also unclear as to whether Share-Alike would extend to other graphical elements used on their set or indeed to the whole news segment ... all creative works.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the osmf-talk