While this discussion is on the wrong list, I do believe one further
comment is necessary.
The "upgrade clause" in 4.b of CC-by-SA 2.0
a) only applies to a Derivative Work. While this is only a small hurdle
to surmount, it does mean that it doesn't apply to a one-to-one copy of
the work
b) is a right granted to the the licensee. If we assume the popular
"every mapper has IPR in his contribution and licenses that to the OSMF"
pre-CT construction is correct, this implies that while the OSMF could
distribute the database under a later licence, the relationship between
mapper and OSMF would still be stuck with CC-by-SA 2.0 with all the
related issues. If we take my favourite interpretation of the pre-CT
situation, then the OSMF is the initial licensor and only licensees
obtaining the work from the OSMF would benefit from the upgrade clause.
Any way we attack the problem, we would still have to get express
consent from every mapper to effectively address the issues of database
rights and other issues that have been mentioned.
IANAL but I like playing one on OSM lists.
Simon
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
