[OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

[Anthony]

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 12:47 AM, Matt Amos <zerebubuth at gmail.com> wrote:

> CC BY-SA imposes requirements *using* copyright law.


No it doesn't.  Copyright law imposes requirements.  CC-BY-SA provides a
waiver to some of those requirements.


> > ODbL, on the other hand, is a standard bilateral contract.
>
> which still gives you *more* rights.
>

What right does it give me which I didn't already have?


> from my reading of creative commons comments they're saying something
> very different from what you seem to be saying. but maybe i'm just
> misunderstanding you.
>

I guess so, which is why I quoted them.

> The result is that the ODbL can in certain
> > circumstances impose obligations and restrictions on users under a
> contract
> > theory, rather than based on a protection afforded by statute, common
> law,
> > or other recognized right.
>
> indeed. this is kind of the point: the US and some other jurisdictions
> don't yet have a database rights law, so to enforce similar
> restrictions to CC BY-SA it's necessary to use some other method.
>

Okay, well, that's my point.  I don't want to have those restrictions
imposed.

Although, I don't see how they're "similar restrictions to CC-BY-SA", since
you agree that CC-BY-SA doesn't enforce those restrictions.

I live in the United States.  I can do whatever the heck I want with the OSM
database.  Now you want me to agree to a contract limiting those rights.  So
I'll ask again:  What's in it for me?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20091206/e21dc5da/attachment.html>