On 03/05/2009 06:19 AM, Andrea Musuruane wrote: > Hi, > Openstreetmap project is about to change their license from > CC-BY-SA to ODbL: > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-February/001958.html > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Open_Database_License > > The Openstreetmap foundation has opened a discussion about the > license. It will end on March, 20th. It intends to publish the > definitive license on March, 28th. > > Therefore I'd like to know if this license would permit to include > Openstreetmap contents (e.g. maps) in the Fedora Project or if it has > some problems. > > I think that it would be very useful if problems could arise now that > the license is not yet released or used. I really don't want to subscribe to another mailing list... would you be willing to relay comments to the Open Data Commons people? Looking at the Factual Information License, I've got some concerns. I asked Red Hat Legal to take a look at it, and this was their reply: I think the problem with this one is that the definition of "Use" introduces some fundamental uncertainty. If it really means "any act that is restricted by copyright", and this license does seem to be trying to be a copyright license, then there ought to be no problem, since "Use" should encompass any act of modification that is restricted by applicable copyright -- e.g. rights to create derivative works under U.S. copyright law. However, then they bother to say "modifying the Work as may be technically necessary to use it in a different mode or format". That sounds like they might be implying that broader acts of modification are not within the scope of "Use", despite the apparent reach of the first part of the definition. And if "Use" does indeed encompass only a proper subset of copyright-law modification acts, then it would be non-free. While in general that wouldn't necessarily be true, but here the narrow interpretation suggests it is non-free because the apparently-granted modification rights are too limited. In addition, I'm concerned that there does not appear to be any explicit grant of permission to redistribute content under the Factual Information License without restriction. (RH Legal is still looking at the ODBL, they should have comments on that later, which I will pass along). Thanks in advance, ~spot _______________________________________________ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list