Hi Bruce,<div><br></div><div>A lot of John's comments are getting towards the FUD end of the scale...</div><div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Bruce Bannerman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:B.Bannerman@bom.gov.au">B.Bannerman@bom.gov.au</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
We may have touched on these issues before, however:<br>
<br>
What is wrong with CC licenses?<br></span></font></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>In many parts of the world, CC licenses are not suitable for databases at all. They just plain don't apply in the way people expect them to. In Australia and NZ they do (according to NZ State Services Commission anyway). Creative Commons do not recommend using the normal CC licenses for data - they recommend CC0 or Public Domain.</div>
<div><br></div><div>That doesn't stop people using CC licenses for databases, but there are issues and it's a legal grey area. </div><div><br></div><div>Some key concerns:</div><div> - ShareAlike for creative works means quite different things than for databases, at least according to the legal text. So taking CC-SA data and combining it with non-CC data to produce a map shouldn't pose a problem - but legally it is seen to.</div>
<div> - The ShareAlike bit is intended to resolve around the "openstreetmap" data. As Robin said, because of the grey area someone could potentially take a fork and lock it, or fulfil the sharing part by producing a map, keeping the data locked.</div>
<div> - what is acceptable attribution is completely up to the licensor - in this case an individual OSM contributor. I could demand that Bing displays my name in 18pt Comic Sans on their maps as an attribution for my edits.</div>
<div><br></div><div>All these concerns apply to CC-BY-SA datasets in Australia/NZ too.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt">
<br>
Why does OSM feel the need to go to an Open Database License?<br></span></font></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>To resolve the grey area. The problem isn't going to "go away" or "get better", despite a lot of people's assertions, so the project is looking at how to clear it up properly. Basically, there is no ShareAlike license for data. Anywhere.</div>
<div><br></div><div>The ODbL is one option, public domain is another. As part of the the ODbL license, the OSM Foundation can change licenses in future with consent, and can be a single licensor for the dataset.</div><div>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
IMO, OSM has got ‘Buckley’s Chance’ of getting Government data released under an Open Database License in the foreseeable future, if at all.<br></span></font></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Well, time will tell. If OSM can start adding value to data, distribution, feedback, and other aspects then a way will be found.</div>
<div><br></div><div>There'a s lot of information from all viewpoints available on the wiki:</div><div><a href="http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/We_Are_Changing_The_License">http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/We_Are_Changing_The_License</a></div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Rob :)</div></div>
</div></div>