It should really be clear from the blog post, but just to clarify: the interpretation of the CC BY licences that we based our guidance on is CCs reading of the licence and the result of discussion with CC, not something that the LWG invented.
Simon Am 16.09.2019 um 10:27 schrieb Andrew Harvey: > On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 18:07, Jonathon Rossi <j...@jonorossi.com > <mailto:j...@jonorossi.com>> wrote: > > True, but that quote was that they wouldn't relicense under the > ODbL. I hadn't really thought about it as relicensing, but by > definition removing a clause would be a modified license. > Interesting that heaps of other agencies are granting OSM a > modified license, obviously in addition to everyone else getting > it under CCBY4. > > > I'm not sure. > > > The OSMF waiver asks for the licensor to allow copy protection on > derivative works. IANAL but am unclear which part of the CCBY4 > clause prevents copy protection on your derivative works if you in > parallel provided all CCBY4 "Licensed Material" unrestricted. > > > [...] the Licensed Material *_if doing so restricts_* exercise > of the Licensed Rights by any recipient of the Licensed Material > > > Yep that's the clause. You might get more of an answer on the > legal-talk mailing list. IANAL either so all we can do is abide by the > current guidance from the licensing working group. > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
