Steve Bennett wrote [quoting DELWP]: > My initial response is that we wouldn't want OSM to apply a more > restrictive license than ours
In which case they've chosen the wrong licence. If you license your work under a permissive, attribution-only licence (CC-BY), then you are automatically giving permission for it to be relicensed under a share-alike, attribution-only licence (CC-BY-SA). You can't license under CC-BY and say "no-one may incorporate this data into a dataset with share-alike restrictions". That would defeat the point of a permissive licence, which is roughly (attribution aside) "do what you will with this data". They can go ask Creative Commons if they don't believe this. So the question should be: given that they have already allowed the work to be relicensed under a share-alike, attribution-required licence (CC-BY-SA) which happens to have automatic compatibility with CC-BY, will they allow the work to be relicensed under another share-alike, attribution-required licence (ODbL) which unfortunately doesn't have automatic compatibility? There's no principled reason I can see for granting one but not the other. > DELWP doesn't want to get into creating one-off variations for > every potential user with a preference - Google, HERE, etc. Where "etc." means "TomTom". There are only four worldwide geodata providers. It's hardly a slippery slope of individual permissions. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Any-expert-CC-BY-ODbL-negotiators-tp5853511p5853553.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk