[OSM-legal-talk] To calm some waters - about Section 3

[James Livingston]

On 26/08/2010, at 2:12 AM, Simon Ward wrote:
> I don’t know if that’s how legal types read it, but couldn’t it also be
> taken transitively as follows:
> 
> 1. CTs allow licensing under ODbL 1.0;
> 
> 2. ODbL 1.0 allows licensing under a compatible licence, or later
>    version of the ODbL;
> 
> 3. By (1) and (2), CTs allow licencing under ODbL 1.0, which includes
>    licences compatible with ODbL 1.0, or a later version of the ODbL?

I believe so, via:
1) OSMF releases a copy of the data they collected under the CTs with a ODbL 1.0 license
2) Someone takes that copy and then re-releases it under ODbL 1.1

There is no reason that someone in step can't be the OSMF as well. However I think they couldn't release _only_ under ODbL 1.1, they have to do both ODbL 1.0 (from the first step) and 1.1, unless f they could get around that by "releasing" non-publicly in the first step.