I would have thought this situation would be considered a derivative work? Is this not the general opinion?<br><br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 1/31/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Robert (Jamie) Munro</b> <<a href="mailto:rjmunro@arjam.net">
rjmunro@arjam.net</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">A Morris wrote:<br>> I vote for keeping CC.<br>>
<br>> I'm totally happy with my CC-licensed map data being used in proprietary<br>> navigation systems, speed camera warning systems, printed maps sold in<br>> shops, websites with adverts, etc, but when said vendor discovers a new
<br>> speed camera, I want them to be forced to add that speed camera back<br>> into OSM.<br>><br>> That simply won't happen if OSM is PD.<br><br>It won't happen with CC either. That's not what the CC license says.
<br><br>It would be great to have an alternative license that does say something<br>like that, though, but currently we can't. The foundation only have the<br>data under CC, so they can't offer it under anything else.
<br><br>I've never advocated going public domain, just letting the foundation<br>have a choice over future licensing, rather than fix ourselves to a<br>single license now, particularly as that license is incompatible with
<br>npemaps postcode collection system.<br><br>Robert (Jamie) Munro<br><br><br><br></blockquote></div><br>