On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Gervase Markham <gerv-gm...@gerv.net> wrote: > On 08/03/09 21:02, Frederik Ramm wrote: >> Sure; but how likely is it that we'll still be at ODbL v1.0 at that >> time? Since our license can be upgraded to "a later version", so can the >> list of compatible SA licenses for Produced Works. > > We could; but not every SA license is well-known. For maximum > compatibility and future-proofing, it would be better to have criteria. > And I don't think that's unachievable. Something along the lines of: > > A license which: > - preserves the freedoms to copy, share, modify and redistribute > and > - requires you to license derivative works under the same license.
That covers CC-BY-NC-SA. ;-) I agree with Frederik that an explicit list of licences is the better solution. CC are using this approach. - Rob. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
