[OSM-talk] Wanted - spare CC-BY-SA account

[Julio Costa Zambelli]

Peteris,

I agree with you. I do not see anything wrong with ODbL this far. But
The third condition of the Contributor Terms is unacceptable to me.

Mappers from Germany or Southern England are probably one next to the
other at this point of OSMs history, so bulk imports sound like
absolutely disposable sources to them, but here in Chile we have some
regions with the same or lower population densities than Siberia, and
in those places the government agencies data is crucial.

Some cities in those regions are being and will be mapped by locals
and visitors, but there are dirt "highways" thousands kilometers
long[1] and rarely used which are very well mapped with our current
sources. It does not make any sense to me to insert an ambiguity
factor in our license scheme (CT3), leaving out perfectly reasonable
sources that work under our current pure BY-SA scheme.

Cheers

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carretera_Austral


On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Peteris Krisjanis <pecisk at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2010/8/10 Anthony <osm at inbox.org>:
>> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Elena of Valhalla
>> <elena.valhalla at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 8/10/10, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Peter Körner <osm-lists at mazdermind.de>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> [...] CC-BY-SA can't be used for databases.
>>>>
>>>> That's certainly trivially incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> The database that holds Wikipedia is a database, for instance.
>>>
>>> And it's not under CC-BY-SA per se, it's a collection of creative
>>> works (the articles) that are under CC-BY-SA
>>
>> So you're agreeing with the statement that CC-BY-SA can't be used for
>> databases?  Okay, whatever.
>>
>
> This is going too many times around.
>
> For summary, there are:
> 1) People who are imported bunches of data from thirty party sources
> and owners those sources where fine with SA and/or Attribution
> clauses, or have licensed data under CC-BY-SA and are mostly easily
> reachable to relicense data to ODbL. These pople DON'T OPPOSE ODbL,
> but they DO OPPOSE CT, as it has nasty wording about "further
> re-licensing", which can make promises to keep data attributed and
> shared alike impossible. As far we know, there are several official
> complains made to LWG and we hope this will be fixed.
> p.s. I'm and several very loud people in this list in this group :)
>
> 2) There are people who oppose OdBL in general, as they are confused
> OR don't see problems with CC-BY-SA. Unfortunately, facts plus
> copyright law are in grey area, and it is very hard to say easily what
> works and what not. But from other side, LWG and OSMF have listened to
> complains and have done their homework on ODbL. So while it is leap of
> faith, it could be good one. For this group it would probably better
> scenario is a fork, as it seems majority of OSM contributors accept
> move to ODbL.
>
> Please take into account, that first group is rather big. We are not
> looking to ignore that CC-BY-SA is on shaky grounds, we want to use
> ODbL, but we want to be sure about future - therefore we are asking to
> fix wording of CT so we can be sure OSM in the future will be licensed
> using SA (we don't mind limited form of this in ODbL) and SA.
>
> I really hope LWG will soon make decision about re-licensing clauses
> in CT so we can move forward.
>
> Cheers, and have a nice day,
> Peter.
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>