[OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

[Mike Dupont]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 7:13 AM, Russ Nelson <nelson at crynwr.com> wrote:

> Mike  Dupont writes:
>  > how can you take a cc-by-sa document edit it and publish it under pd?
>  > can I just make derived works in any license i want?
>
> Well, that's part of the problem here. How do we determine what is
> someone's work, and what is a derived work?  If I take a way that
> someone has entered (poorly), and I move each and every node, and fix
> the speling on the name of the way, whose creative work is it?  (one
> could easily argue that the other person was the one being "creative"
> whereas my work is merely a fact about the world, but I'm not going to
> make that argument here).
>

Well from my view, it is a creative commons share alike document, and
changing it means you are creating a derived work.
It it was source code, and the map can be converted into one. It could be
included in a program. Just look at the license of some flight simulators
etc, then any significant change must adhere to the project license.

I am very very sceptical of any practice of this PD licensing, who approved
that? Was it ever thought through? I think that there are some serious
problems with the consistency of the OSM if we allow for fragmented licensed
data. Does anyone else see it this way?

Guys, another question, what is the difference between wikipedia and osm? I
mean CCSA works for WP, why cant it work here?

I repeat my question about an independent review, I would ask you all to
submit the CT and new license to the OSI, CC and software freedom law center
for review,
if there are real problems in the CCBYSA, dont you think they should fix
them?

Why are we being terrorized with this license drama for months, can we just
use one that works and leave it up to license experts to resolve problems in
them?

thanks,

mike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20110420/b58e2917/attachment.html>