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

[Stefano]

Hi,
I linked this thread to Rufus Pollock and the opendatacommons website is
now up again.
The OKFN chat is here https://gitter.im/okfn/chat

Regards,
Stefano

2018-04-08 14:18 GMT+02:00 James <james2432 at gmail.com>:

> Just because you are not the curator of the license doesnt mean you cant
> display the full legal text somewhere else...The text wont change. GPL,
> LGPL, BSD, etc projects usually distribute their software with a license
> text file with the full legal text and dont depend on 1 single point of
> failure
>
> On Sun, Apr 8, 2018, 8:13 AM Simon Poole, <simon at poole.ch> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 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> wrote:
>>
>>> Currently I'm pointing to http://web.archive.org/web/
>>> 20180317184051/https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ however as
>>> the 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>
>>> :
>>>
>>>> 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 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 listosmf-talk at openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> talk mailing list
>>> talk at openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> 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/20180408/0628c4dd/attachment-0001.html>