On 09/03/09 15:29, Rob Myers wrote:
> 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. ;-)
No, it doesn't. CC-BY-NC-SA doesn't preserve the freedom to redistribute
commercially. The addition of two words fix the ambiguity:
A license which:
- preserves without restriction the freedoms to copy, share, modify
and redistribute
and
- requires you to license derivative works under the same license.
But my point is not that my did-it-in-30-seconds formulation is legally
watertight. My point is that it's entirely possible, because it's been
done several times before for various purposes.
Gerv
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
