Felix Hartmann <[email protected]> wrote: > [...] > Nope, they don't have to. Only if they use it as one database. If they > use it to publish maps, or create a product that afterwards uses two > databases seperately, they don't have to publish their own data under Odbl.
Yes, no licence has the power to force an entity to publish their own data/works under a free licence. Even when using sharealike material there has turnarounds. But the original sharelike material has to remain sharealike. > This has some positive sides, i.e. you could use CCBYNC data inside a > map (which is a product) whithout that data loosing its NC status, OSM do not use NC (its in its basic philosophy) and rememeber CC licence do not apply to data (so this licence on OSM has no legal value, OSM data are not protected at all). CC said this : > [...] basically anyone can do whatever he wants now with OSM > data, whithout giving a penny back. For me this is unacceptable and I > won't agree to the new license, and also tell other people to stay far > away from odbl. It has always been the philosophy of OSM, the use of CCBYSA instead of CCBYSANC is there to show this, even if CC licence can't apply to data... > For me Odbl means that the quest for free data has failed, if you push > Odbl license, you push data that is incompatible to CCBYSA terms as we > know them. I don't understand your point of view. There is no radical difference between ODBL and CCBYSA. The main one if that ODBL apply to data and database, not CC. -- Pierre-Alain Dorange _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
