2010/7/18 John Smith <deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com>: > On 19 July 2010 06:27, Peteris Krisjanis <pec...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I know you like to have personal flame war, but in nutshell ODBL is >> share alike, so no problems here. I have two questions though: >> 1) Why we need CT in first place >> 2) What section 3 is about > > http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms > > 3. OSMF agrees to use or sub-license Your Contents as part of a > database and only under the terms of one of the following licenses: > ODbL 1.0 for the database and DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of > the database; CC-BY-SA 2.0; or another free and open license. Which > other free and open license is chosen by a vote of the OSMF membership > and approved by at least a 2/3 majority vote of active contributors. > > An "active contributor" is defined as: > > a natural person (whether using a single or multiple accounts) who > has edited the Project in any 3 calendar months from the last 12 > months (i.e. there is a demonstrated interest over time); and > has maintained a valid email address in their registration profile > and responds within 3 weeks. >
So, problem is, while ODBL is fine as SA license (for data that is), CT requires to give OSMF rights to republish data under license which so far by CT can be also non-share-alike, right? Will it be a problem to add small addition to this section 3 "or another share alike free and open license"? Or it will destroy someone's dream about publishing those data under BSD like or PD some day? :) Cheers, Peter. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
