On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 12:49:32AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 06:20:32PM +0200, Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote: > >> I cannot speak for everyone, but I do think that the general idea is to > >> make > >> the ODbL work like a copyleft license (i.e. you're required to distribute > >> the "source" data only to the people you distribute the maps to). You'll > >> have > >> to wait for the final, revised version to be sure. > > > > I’d rather not wait for a less than acceptable licence. I’d like to > > sort out any problems beforehand. > > > > For me, allowing my contributions to be distributed without a > > share-alike is going to take some pretty damn good convincing. > > The issue that you are quoting Ivan with is not a > share-alike-or-not-share-alike question. It is the question of whom you > have to share with. The *current* license (and also the usual GNU > licenses) say that if you give a derived product to X, you also have to > give X the source code and the rights to pass it on etc. (and X *might* > then choose to make everything public - mut he might also not). > > The propsed license text - and I believe that is by accident rather than > by design - always talks about the public: If you give THE PUBLIC a > derived product you also have to etc.etc., but what if you give it only > to X?
I wasn’t specific enough in my quotation. What I should have quoted
was:
“You'll have to wait for the final, revised version to be sure.”
Hope that makes my statement more clear.
Simon
--
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
