Dermot McNally <dermotm <at> gmail.com> writes: >>What's the plan for deciding whether and when to cut off CC-BY-SA >>distribution? Would it require a 2/3 vote of contributors? > >I guess the problem with continuing to allow CC distribution of the >data is that that would leave OSM unprotected in those jurisdictions >where CC isn't recognised for map data. Given that this is a main goal >of the change,
It's _a_ goal but I think the more important selling points for ODbL/DbCL are the positive ones - more uses it would permit for the data, for example distributing map tiles without having to follow any particular licence for them. In my view the 'negative' selling points - that it would supposedly allow the OSMF to sue people in all the cases where the map is currently being used wrongly and we can't do anything - are less central to the project's vision. Also note that CC-BY-SA 2.0 is simply a grant of rights under copyright law. If copyright "does not apply", then it has not granted anything. So in fact the whole question of whether copyright applies can be sidestepped: people can agree to differ on this matter and pick the licence to their taste. In the end, legal reasons aren't the most important ones. I hope that OSM can be a broad church. The aim is for everyone to feel able to agree to the CTs, whichever faction they belong to, or none. So it would be good to follow a broad-based licensing plan that can accommodate everyone. -- Ed Avis <e...@waniasset.com> _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk