On 26/08/2010, at 2:12 AM, Simon Ward wrote: > I don’t know if that’s how legal types read it, but couldn’t it also be > taken transitively as follows: > > 1. CTs allow licensing under ODbL 1.0; > > 2. ODbL 1.0 allows licensing under a compatible licence, or later > version of the ODbL; > > 3. By (1) and (2), CTs allow licencing under ODbL 1.0, which includes > licences compatible with ODbL 1.0, or a later version of the ODbL?
I believe so, via: 1) OSMF releases a copy of the data they collected under the CTs with a ODbL 1.0 license 2) Someone takes that copy and then re-releases it under ODbL 1.1 There is no reason that someone in step can't be the OSMF as well. However I think they couldn't release _only_ under ODbL 1.1, they have to do both ODbL 1.0 (from the first step) and 1.1, unless f they could get around that by "releasing" non-publicly in the first step. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
