sounds to me like what you want is either the artistic licence, which is rather readable, and has few nastinesses (none in fact that are meaningful). the gnu gpl is also pretty close to what you want, especially if you want to really prevent people from for instance applying changes to your maps and making those changes proprietary.
both of these licences fail somewhat in that they're heavily software oriented. i think rms really needs to make some free documentation/data licences, esp. as he goes on a lot about the necessity of free docs. if you don't like either the artistic or gpl (or even the perl trick of allowing them to be distributed under the terms of either), you may want to consider an x11- or bsd-style licence (if you pick the bsd, be sure to knock out the advertising clause (paragraph 3), and add requirements for notice of modification). another one you may want to consider is the licence w3c is using for their standards... there was a thread about it in debian-legal a while ago, which should be in the archives with a reference. --phouchg "For a price I'd do about anything, except pull the trigger: for that I'd need a pretty good cause" -- Queensryche, "Revolution Calling" PGP 5.0 key (0xE024447449) at http://cif.rochester.edu/~jpt/pubkey.txt
