[OSM-legal-talk] "A Creative Commons iCommons license"

[80n]

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
> iCommons
> 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.

80n



>
> cheers
> Richard
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/%22A-Creative-Commons-iCommons-license%22-tp22260709p22260709.html
> Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at
> Nabble.com.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20090228/8faf8508/attachment.html>