Good evening everybody
I have translated some of the license article to german. When I wanted to enter the translation, I noticed that I did not have sufficient access rights to do so. Could you please grant me the rights to do so? - thanks.
While translating (from the french version: ) the license document I stumbled accross a couple of question or passages, which I think could be more precisely elucidated. There are the following points:
Type of content: Articles as well as the user profile are considered part of the guidebook. Elsewhere in the help-articles we are referring to the articles as a separate entity. So I think the classification of content into: (i) contenu collaboratif du topoguide, (ii) contenu personnel du topoguide, and (iii) contenu personnel des forums, is somewhat not coherent with Website's structure as well as its documentation.
Nature of the content: We do not only have "geographical coordinates" (to my understanding that only entails points but no line or area data) , but rather more detailed geographic informations, so we might want to specify: Geographical information: geographically reference points, lines and areas
Licencing georeferenced data under ODBL and cc-by-sa: Is it possible to apply two licenses? Which of the licenses is applying in case of doubt? The more restrictive one? Why not decide on one? Is OSM intending to do the same dual licensing strategy when during the transition to ODBL?
Creative Commons license version: Why are we referring to the 2.0 version if the current version seems 3.0?
Please note that I am not a lawyer, so some of my points may have easily arisen due to my lack of knowledge on the subject....
Thanks for your explanations - Hans