<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div>Warning: not a lawyer<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">It seems that problem described in<br></div><div dir="auto"><a href="https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/CDLA_permissive_compatibility">https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/CDLA_permissive_compatibility</a><br></div><div dir="auto">remain and it is not going to work well with incorporating<br></div><div dir="auto">CDLA-licensed material into a larger dataset that may be<br></div><div dir="auto">further edited.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">"A Data Recipient may share Data, with or without modifications, <br></div><div dir="auto">so long
as the Data Recipient makes available the text of this agreement<br></div><div dir="auto">with
the shared Data."<br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Mar 21, 2022, 14:19 by CjMalone@mail.com:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div>Hello,<br></div><div><br></div><div>I was wondering if anyone had read the CDLA Permissive 2.0 [1], and<br></div><div>checked for compatibility with the ODbL. I think it looks OK, but<br></div><div>IANAL.<br></div><div><br></div><div>I've seen there was a review of the CDLA Permissive 1.0 [2], which<br></div><div>seems to have come to a conclusion of "maybe". But CDLA Permissive 2.0<br></div><div>is a much sorter and simpler license.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Any opinions?<br></div><div><br></div><div>Cj<br></div><div><br></div><div>[1] https://cdla.dev/permissive-2-0/<br></div><div>[2] https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/CDLA_permissive_compatibility<br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>_______________________________________________<br></div><div>legal-talk mailing list<br></div><div>legal-talk@openstreetmap.org<br></div><div>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk<br></div></blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div> </body>
</html>