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

[SteveC]

On Dec 6, 2009, at 1:48 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:53 AM, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
>> Well, you may think Creative Commons is "stupid", but I hope others will
>> give them a chance and listen to what they have to say.  I think they will,
>> considering that Creative Commons is well known and respected, compared to
>> Open Data Commons, who doesn't even seem to have an article on Wikipedia.
> 
> I also tend to side with Creative Commons. It is not very wise of ODbL 
> proponents to claim that CC say that CC-BY-SA doesn't work for data 
> without also admitting that CC recommend CC0 for data.

Personally I don't because the former is a legal opinion and the latter is a moral crusade opinion.

> 
> Matt Amos wrote:
>> i have listened to what they have to say, and it makes perfect sense.
>> they recognise that databases like OSM's don't have much basis for
>> protection in copyright law, so they correctly deduce that there are
>> two options:
>> 
>> 1) drop requirements enforced by copyright law. this results in a
>> "PD-like" license, to whit: CC0.
>> 2) enforce requirements by law other than copyright law. this results
>> in a database rights/contract license, to whit: ODbL.
>> 
>> creative commons decided, as a policy, that option (1) was preferable,
>> as it places fewer restrictions on the use of the data. however, it
>> drops the share-alike and attribution requirements. they clearly felt
>> that this would provide the best benefit to the scientific community.
> 
> This "as a policy" is something that Steve claims as well, implying that 
> rather than working things out, they just decreed something. But I don't 
> think this does them justice

Not even if John Wilbanks admitted it?

Yours &c.

Steve