[OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Restricting future licenses

[Anthony]

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 8:42 AM, Chris Browet <cbro at semperpax.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 14:17, Richard Weait <richard at weait.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 7:58 AM, Chris Browet <cbro at semperpax.com> wrote:
>>
>> > They definitely need to define that, it would help. "an OSI endorsed
>> > free
>> > and open license", maybe...
>>
>> OSI don't endorse Open Data Licenses as far as I know.  Open Data
>> Commons do and they even consulted with the OSM community in writing
>> ODbL.
>
> Ok, that was probably a bad example. The point still is: What is the
> definition of a "free and open license".

Personally I'd say ODbL doesn't qualify.

I've contacted Angela Beesley and Benjamin Mako Hill from
freedomdefined.com, and they say they have not yet evaluated the ODbL.
 I was, however, referred by them to
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ODbL_comments_from_Creative_Commons
and invited to come over to the Freedomdefined wiki to discuss it.