[OSM-talk] Using editors to indicate license preference.

[Anthony]

That's not how the ODBL works.  When the switch is made to the ODBL, every
individual changeset/node/way/etc will be effectively in the PD (everyone in
the world will have a non-revocable license to do anything restricted by
copyright law).  Only the database as a whole will be under ODBL.

On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 7:36 PM, John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com>wrote:

> Currently there is a lot of debate over licenses, some people want to
> change from cc-by-sa to odbl and yet others keep pushing for things to
> go to public domain.
>
> I was chatting with one such person in favour of PD on the phone
> yesterday about this, one thought that occurred to me was to have data
> tagged with license information, editors could potentially go about
> this in a number of ways, explicitly tagging nodes, ways and relations
> with the license chosen by the user, eg data:license=public_domain,
> and warning PD advocates if they edit CC-BY-SA/ODBL information and
> that the changes won't be public domain. When a person explicitly
> wants ODBL/CC-BY-SA the license could be updated or stripped if it
> matches the OSM default.
>
> Alternatively the changeset could be tagged, but this would be a lot
> more difficult for editors to "know" what is PD and what isn't if the
> changeset contains a mix of both.
>
> While I personally favour a share alike type license, some don't and
> this might be a way to make the majority of people happier.
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20100117/cf8c0873/attachment.html>