On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 4:44 AM, James Livingston <li...@sunsetutopia.com> wrote: > 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.
The reason would be that they've contractually agreed not to release the database under any license other than ODbL 1.0 or CC-BY-SA 2.0, without a 2/3 vote. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
