[OSM-legal-talk] "A Creative Commons iCommons license"
Richard Fairhurst
richard at systemed.net
Sat Feb 28 14:41:11 GMT 2009
80n wrote:
> No. CC-BY-SA does not have a class of derivative works that are not
> share alike. ODbL does.
No it doesn't, that's the entire point of what I said. (Is this the
five-minute argument or the full half-hour?) This is what 4.7 in ODbL is all
about. The data is still "protected", if that's the kind of language you
like, by share-alike at all times.
> As I understand it Jordan is not our lawyer and cannot advise us on
> whether or not we should use the FIL.
So now I am utterly confused.
Some people called Wilson Sonsini have advised us to use ODbL in a manner
which is not, AIUI, the manner recommended by the licence co-author, who one
would presume understands these things.
And here I am debating with an OSMF board member who appears to be arguing
_against_ the licence being recommended by OSMF.
What on earth is going on?
Richard
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/%22A-Creative-Commons-iCommons-license%22-tp22260709p22262758.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
More information about the legal-talk
mailing list