On Wednesday 05 September 2012 05:04:06 Martin Spott wrote: > Scott wrote: > > But more seriously, I'm no license guru, and you picked one of the main > > points I'm not clear on, the original CC in this example is > > "Share-alike" and "Derived works allowed with attribution". > > It really depends on the particular phrasing in license text. > One of the - various - reasons for not providing 'official' FlightGear > Scenery with OSM roads is the clause in CC-BY-SA 2.0, which says: > > "If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute > the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this > one." > > > .... whereas the GPL is widely considered as not being sufficiently > "similar", despite the fact that the *intention* isn't that much > different. > > Cheers, > Martin.
IANAL. The issues are non-commercial and attribution. The attribution clause is effectively the BSD advertising clause, which is a horrible idea on multiple levels. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html And has been pointed out, selling of flightgear does have a legitimate place. Ron ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
