2016-01-19 10:38 GMT+01:00 Simon Poole :
> As has been pointed out here before CC-BY 4.0 is essentially a completely
> new license (compared to previous CC-BY versions) and potentially is not
> "fixable", definitely it is not just a question of getting permission to
> attribute on the website. Fur
As has been pointed out here before CC-BY 4.0 is essentially a
completely new license (compared to previous CC-BY versions) and
potentially is not "fixable", definitely it is not just a question of
getting permission to attribute on the website. Further it could be
argued that in reality such permi
View this message in context:
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-new-wiki-page-ODbL-compatibility-of-common-licenses-tp5865065p5865100.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
legal-talk mailing list
l
2016-01-18 16:21 GMT+01:00 Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) <
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com>:
> Some comments / suggestions:
>
>
thank you for your comments.
> * In the notes column, it might be better to say "rights holder(s)"
> rather than "licensor" since the former is presumably the only
> per
On 18 January 2016 at 10:53, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Following a thread on the OSMF-talk list, I am kindly asking you to review
> and improve a new wiki page that tries to give an overview about the
> compatibility of common licenses with the ODbL and CT:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/
Following a thread on the OSMF-talk list, I am kindly asking you to review
and improve a new wiki page that tries to give an overview about the
compatibility of common licenses with the ODbL and CT:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/ODbL_Compatibility
Feel free to modify and improve this f
