andrzej zaborowski <balr...@...> writes: >That's what I think the plan is. However it is made very difficult by >the fact that those data providers most likely chose their SA licenses >in order to be able to use any improvements made on top of their data, >which we are planning to very soon make impossible for them. So we >now approach them and say "Hello, can you please grant all these.. >perpetual.. irrevocable.. etc. rights to something called OSMF, and by >the way you won't be able to use OSM data any more because our new >license is not compatible with yours".
Agreed. If we are encouraging others to open up their data, we need to lead by example and be open with ours. There is a lot of discussion on this list about whether licence X is compatible to allow us to take data into the project, but very little about what this project can do to let our data be used by others. Now, ODbL allows a list of compatible licences. We could quite straightforwardly add CC-BY-SA as such a licence to allow sharing back of data under the normal share-alike terms. (If somebody used that licence and distributed their work under CC-BY-SA, we could not import it back into OSM, but that is the case under the proposed contributor terms too, even if the other party used the ODbL.) -- Ed Avis <e...@waniasset.com> _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
