[OSM-legal-talk] "A Creative Commons iCommons license"
80n80n at gmail.com
Sat Feb 28 10:43:10 GMT 2009
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemed.net>wrote:
> CC-BY-SA says:
> You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly
> digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License, a
> later version of this License with the same License Elements as this
> License, or a Creative Commons iCommons license that contains the same
> License Elements as this License (e.g. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Japan).
> <slightly provocative>
> Could we ask CC to declare that the new fabulous ODbL, after due revision
> and comments by the community, can be considered a Creative Commons
> licence for the purposes of the above - in much the same way as FSF
> permitted migration from GFDL to CC-BY-SA?
> </slightly provocative>
It's my understanding that the ODbL is very different from a CC-BY-SA
license, so I think this would be a very unlikely thing to happen.
More importantly the Factual Information License, which is what contributors
will actually be signing up to, is totally unlike CC-BY-SA in every respect.
> View this message in context:
> Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the legal-talk