On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 3:28 AM, Mike Collinson <m...@ayeltd.biz> wrote: > A CC-BY-SA license *is* an explicit permission to you by the rights holder. > So that is not a problem and we will revise the CTs to better communicate > that in plain language.
What I was getting at: 1) The CTs require that incoming be licensed as CC-BY-SA, and ODbL *and* possible future licenses 2) I doubt there exists any data provider in the world that provides such a license as a matter of course 3) Therefore any incoming content would have to come from a data provider that *explicitly authorises it for OSM*. 4) Therefore the fact of any existing content being licensed under CC-BY-SA and/or ODbL is meaningless, because it's not enough. > So you really need to go back to the actual rights holder and ask them to > clarify what they personally/organisationally are happy with, or better > still, use a more appropriate license. That is a major reason we want to > move away from it ourselves. Again, please correct me if I'm wrong, but even if they licensed the data under ODbL 1.0, that's not enough for me to use that data: I don't have permission from the data provider to relicense it under PFDbL 1.1 (possible future database licence 1.1). > The other alternative is for us collectively to get a highly authoritative > source to say that a CC-BY-SA license on data could reasonably be interpreted > as giving permission to contribute to OSM. I'll find out where we are on that. The other alternative is to ditch the future licence clause. Steve _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
