<div class="gmail_quote">On 14 February 2012 03:17, Simon Poole <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:simon@poole.ch">simon@poole.ch</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I believe there is some contention as to what in 1.a "current licence terms" refers to, but it is at least consistent with the document to assume that it refers to the licences listed in 3., so both CC-by-SA 2.0 and ODbL + DbCL1.0 , implying that any imports have to be compatible with both*. I can't put my finger on an formal statement by the LWG that would indicate otherwise, can you?<div class="im">
</div></blockquote></div><br>I can't remember hearing any authoritative answers from the LWG on this, but it has been discussed a few times before. The answer I got when I asked, and almost all the answers I've seen to other people's questions since, are that it only has to be compatible with the current license we distribute the DB under (i.e. CC-BY-SA right now). For example <a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2011-April/005916.html">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2011-April/005916.html</a>.<br>
<br>One problem with taking it to mean that any uploads must be compatible with both CC-BY-SA and ODbL+DbCL is that what it post-changeover. The same logic would then say that anything uploaded must be compatible with CC-BY-SA, which I would think is not what people want it to mean.<br>
<br><br>-- <br>James<br>