Frederik Ramm wrote: > If we leave everything as it is (saying that Produced Works need to be > accompanied by a rule that reverse engineering triggers ODbL - assuming > for a moment that this is the license's intent, Gustav has rightly said > that we should seek clarification on that), but we add a clause saying: > > "This license explicitly allows the distribution of a Produced Work > under any of the following licenses: GPL v2 or later, GFDL, CC-SA, > CC-BY-SA, CC-BY-SA-NC. In addition, a Produced Work may be distributed > under any other license that complies with the requirements set forth in > this license." > > - then this would make it possible to create a Produced Work that mixes > OSM data and, say, CC-BY-SA data; [...]
Earlier this year we had a use case aiming at OSM data getting 'compiled' into Scenery for use with the OpenSource FlightGear flight simulator ("Using OSM data in a computer game [...]"). This use case has meanwhile been transformed into a scenario that doesn't apply to FlightGear any more as FlightGear, the source code as well as the "Scenery" data is published under the GPL (v2). Thus the resulting Scenery format is in no way neither proprietary nor closed - in contrast to the scenario now expressed in the respective use case. Should 'we' add yet another use case ? Another 'solution' that allows 'us' to implement OSM's road layout in FlightGear Scenery would be indeed having a clause as proposed above added to the license. Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk