>>>> De : Tobias Knerr <o...@tobias-knerr.de>
>>>> Hi Julien,
>>>> the relevant part of the CT was introduced so that OSM would not have to
>>>> suffer such a painful loss again. Ideally, it should be possible to
>>>> decide on a license change purely based on the merits of the proposed
>>>> new license.
Hi Tobias
In my understanding this prevent only the loss of data contributed by no more
active contributor. For me there is nothing related to an incompatiblity with
data licence source.
>>>> There have been quite a few rights holders who have given OSM such an
>>>> explicit permission, so it might be worthwhile to just ask them.
If I remember well Australian government didn`t agree to mirgate the data they
provided from CC-by-SA to ODBL so this is not so simple
>>>> But what I'm clearly opposing is importing data with a share-alike
>>>> license - that is, a license that demands that we stick with one single
>>>> license forever.
According to CT terms ( cf below ) I assume that a new licence should maintain
the share-alike of ODBL
Extracted from : http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms
3. OSMF agrees that it may only use or sub-license Your Contents as part of a
database and only under the terms of one or more of the following
licences: ODbL 1.0 for the database and DbCL 1.0 for the individual
contents of the database; CC-BY-SA 2.0; or such other free and open
licence (for example, http://www.opendefinition.org/okd/) as may from time to
time be chosen by a vote of the OSMF membership and approved by at least a 2/3
majority vote of active contributors. )
Cheers
Julien
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
