Documentation of licenses

#1

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

#2

The document is protected to avoid unwanted modifications. I’ve unprotected it so that you can work. We will re-protect it afterwards

The separation of articles is (if i’m not mistaking) only to put some emphasis on it, but it is a part of the guidebook. For example, you have the same separation in the menu for the images

That’s probably true

It is quite usual to license the work under different licenses. The user can then choose which license he wants to apply.

We may have some inconsistancies and refer to 2.0 and 3.0 (should be 2.0 everywhere)
They are almost the same (only some very technical differences and of minor importance), but only version 2.0 has been ported to the french legislation (cc 3.0 only exists as ‹ unported ›)
So we should only refer to 2.0

#3

Yes, it’s better.

I change the french and english versions.
I put :
geographical information: coordinates of a point, line or surface

#4

Thanks for the clarifications and unprotecting the documents. I have now uploaded the parts I have translated up to now, so I would suggest to keep the german version unprotected, while all the other languages should be protected again. Possibly, the corrections on the geographical information should be made in fr and en throughout the document (it is refered to « geographical coordinates » at multiple times).

If anybody happens to be german-speaking, some editing and clean-ups would be desperately needed.

#5

Hi, we cannot unprotect a specific language version of the document, but I don’t think it is a big deal to keep it unprotected for a while. Vandalism on this particular article is unlikely to happen in the mean time.

My german is unfortunately too bad, I’m making too much mistakes when I’m writing.

#6

I now translated the rest of the documentation of the license.

One paragraph was not at all clar to me, neither in french nor in english (under: « Comment diffuser une citation d’un document de camptocamp ? »:

« Par ailleurs, les licences ne s’appliquent qu’à la mise en forme d’une information (texte ou image), mais pas à l’information elle-même. La copie d’une information est toujours autorisée (nom et altitude d’un sommet, quantité de neige, dénivelé, cotation, …). »

« In addition to this, licenses apply to the formatting of a content (text or picture), but not to the information itself. The copy of an information is allways authorized (name and elevation of a summit, snow quantity, climbing grade, …). »

Specifically, I had the following problems with the above para:

  • To my understanding licenses rather apply to the content rather than the formatting
  • « The copy of an information is always authorised » - really? by whom? under which restrictions?

Any clarification?