[OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] ODbL text

[Simon Poole]

Am 08.04.2018 um 13:30 schrieb James:
> why not host it on the osmf website?

Because we don't own the domain (which is what most references to the
actual text use) and are not the curators of the licence (aka we could
in principle simply covertly change the text of the license, having a
third party publish the text is in principle a good idea for such reasons).
 
Simon

PS: that doesn't mean that having our own clean copy as a backup
wouldn't be a good idea, but IMHO the pointer to archive.org is probably
the best of all bad solutions right now.
>
> On Sun, Apr 8, 2018, 5:46 AM Simon Poole, <simon at poole.ch
> <mailto:simon at poole.ch>> wrote:
>
>     Currently I'm pointing to
>     http://web.archive.org/web/20180317184051/https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/
>     however as the opendatacommons.org <http://opendatacommons.org>
>     links are all over the place that isn't really a solution. OKI
>     seems to be aware of the issue, but that is about all what we know
>     (they seem to be intending to move the site to a static website,
>     but there doesn't seem to be a time line or anything available
>     that would indicate if that will happen soon or in a decade).
>
>     I'm sure waving some $ bills in the direction of OKI/Viderum would
>     get it fixed pronto, but it is obviously an undesirable situation
>     that we are depending on a third party that doesn't seem to be
>     interested to provide a stable link to our licence terms.
>
>     Simon
>
>
>     Am 04.04.2018 um 11:27 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
>>
>>
>>     2018-04-04 10:23 GMT+02:00 Javier Sánchez Portero
>>     <javiersanp at gmail.com <mailto:javiersanp at gmail.com>>:
>>
>>         Hello
>>
>>         My name is Javier Sánchez, from Spain.
>>
>>         The link to the ODbL 1.0 License [1] is not available since
>>         January. This is an annoyance if trying to ask for explicit
>>         permission to any data source. Is there any alternative
>>         reference? Should not be fine that OSMF provide a copy of the
>>         text in their site while opendatacommons.org
>>         <http://opendatacommons.org> is down?
>>
>>         [1] https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/
>>
>>         Regards, Javier
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     I agree we should host our own copy of the license.
>>
>>     If you need the license text urgently, you can find it here in
>>     the Internet Archive (not a general solution obviously):
>>     https://web.archive.org/web/20180316015654/https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/
>>
>>     This is a snapshot from yesterday, so somehow they got through,
>>     but I confirm I didn't ge the page either, Error 522.
>>
>>     Cheers,
>>     Martin
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     osmf-talk mailing list
>>     osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org <mailto:osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org>
>>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     talk mailing list
>     talk at openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk at openstreetmap.org>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20180408/5e5e47e7/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20180408/5e5e47e7/attachment.sig>