[OSM-legal-talk] Licensing Working Group report, 2009/01/22

Rob Myers rob at robmyers.org
Sun Jan 25 15:57:24 GMT 2009

andrzej zaborowski wrote:

> Also a different question is bothering me.  The old license is the
> well known CC-BY-SA, so it is automatically compatible with sources
> (and consumers) using the same license.  So, say I've uploaded a lot
> of information based on wikipedia, conscious that I'm uploading under
> an "alike" license.  Now that the license changes, I would be obliged
> to leave even if I agree with the principles of the new license
> because I cannot agree to relicense data that is not my own (derived
> works).

I don't *think* this will happen very much for the OSM licence change,
although some of the big contributed datasets might be affected. It's in
the interest of those donors to have the data under an effective
licence, though.

> Excluding the part allowing the Foundation to implicitly introduce new
> versions of the license might be sufficient for the license to be
> "similar" under the definitions of Creative Commons.

The similarity requirement is useful but ultimately you need to trust
the authors of the licence (and they need to be willing to listen). This
is true of any licence.

- Rob.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 260 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20090125/6846cd9e/attachment.pgp>

More information about the legal-talk mailing list