Fwd: [OSM-talk] BSD/CC-by/LGPL vs. SharedAlike - decide now and forever
immanuel.scholz at gmx.de
Tue Mar 21 23:22:47 GMT 2006
> What aim do we have with our contributions to OSM or similar projects?
The data contributed and collected can be freely accessed and modified,
now and in the future.
> If somebody uses my data and produces a digital map, I want the
> users of the new map to have the same freedom to manipulate the
> new map.
Me too. :)
> I don't know what it would take in practice to enforce
> this transfer of freedom.
I think there are two parts required: Specify a license that allow as many
people as possible to access the data *and* to restrict other people so
they cannot suppress the community making advantage of the data.
I think a viral license like CC-By-Sa or GPL fit for both. BSD likes only
provide the first part well.
> Imi and other GPL fundamentalists need to explain the *practical*
> differences between licensing options *for map data*.
1) may redistribute our data for free.
2) must put published modifications of the data under same license.
3) must put published deriverates (maps, things created using the data)
under same license.
4) must provide the "source" (vector data or even raw gps tracks) that
lead to published deriverates
Public domain: 1)
BSD-like: 1) and 2)
CC-By-Sa: 1), 2) and 3)
> Are we going to set up a fund, so we can pay lawyers to go after those
> companies (and charities!) that violate the CC-SA-BY license
No, we don't have to. Only if someone is annoying or if one of us feel
like he need the adrinalin. But we could go after them ;-) (e.g. when we
can gain cool data from them this way)
I think the main problem is, that we can proove our data is not derived
from others copyrighted work to keep our waistcoat clean.
> How can we prove that a certain derivate product was based
> on our data?
Good question. Any idea? I think the easter egg approach will not work
well (and I dislike it anyway).
More information about the talk