[OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons

[andrzej zaborowski]

On 31 August 2010 17:00, Robert Kaiser <kairo at kairo.at> wrote:
> Maarten Deen schrieb:
>>
>> On 29-8-2010 19:21, Rob Myers wrote:
>>>
>>> It's basically the same as copyright assignment. Which can work well for
>>> projects of non-profit foundations.
>>
>> Copyright assignment is not signing a blank sheet of paper.
>
> No, but it is signing a paper that states exactly which information (all
> your OSM data? all your GNU code?) is handed over to a specific entity (the
> OSMF? the FSF?) in terms of copyright entirely and it's up to that entity to
> license it as they please - possible with certain restrictions (like always
> making it available with a free and open license, as the CT states).
>
> Actually, IMHO, it's was wrong of the OSM project to do neither a copyright
> assignment nor a license that has a clear clause on automatic possibility of
> upgrade to a newer license in the same spirit (i.e. and "and later" clause).

CC-By-SA 2 does have this kind of provision (1.0 didn't), by stating
which licenses it is comptaible with, unfortunately it is not helpful
in this case because CC-By-SA seems to have been a wrong choice from
the start.  The ODbL with it's upgrade clause should be better.

Cheers