On 19 June 2011 12:31, John Smith <deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 19 June 2011 20:24, Robert Whittaker (OSM) > <robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 18 June 2011 11:37, John Smith <deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 18 June 2011 20:35, John Smith <deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Not sure of you point, since cc-by-sa can't be magically turned into >>>> ODBL data, it can only stay cc-by-sa. >>>> >>> >>> Oh and as for CTs, they don't guarantee attribution in future >>> licenses, so that wouldn't be compatible with CC-by either... >> >> According to this recent post, LWG are saying that CC-By and CC-By-SA >> sources are both currently fine to use under the CTs: >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2011-June/011931.html > > Since CC-by and CC-by-SA both require attribution than the CTs would > have guarantee attribution, yet ODBL allows people to output PD tiles, > which don't offer attribution. > > So for the above statement to be true they'd have to enforce > attribution on produced works at the very least.
I think what Robert is trying to say is that you only have to check for compatibility with the current license. But the current license is CC-By-SA, so CC-By-SA data would be okay. But this is quite confusing, I'm not sure if Robert is right and Mike Collinson's e-mail makes it even more difficult to interpret the Contributor Terms becuase it seems to say: "contributed data needs to be ODbL compatible but doesn't need to be strictly compatible with all the possible future free and open licenses" But I see only two possible interpretations of the Contributor Terms: * "contributed data needs to be compatible with the *current* license" or * "contributed data needs to be compatible with CC-By-SA, ODbL 1.0+DbCL and any future free and open license" with no midway point. Cheers _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
