[OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources

[Mike Dupont]

On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 11:01 AM, pecisk at gmail.com <pecisk at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi everyone!
>
> To clarify my criticism/confusion with CT:
>
> 1) I'm not against ODbL. It is nice idea and I wholeheartedly support it;
> 2) I'm not against general idea of CT, I understand why it is needed;
>
> My confusion and problem lies within fact, that while I can accept CT
> if I add only my own data to OSM, I can't to do that due of
> third-party sources because some of them requires attribution and
> share alike. While ODbL is good enough for both of these things
> (theoretically), then CT blocks, because it says that nature of the
> license of imported data can change. As I'm not author of those data,
> I don't have permission to change nature of the license.
>
> About three or four months ago there was discussion about adding
> clarification about "free and open license", to add both share alike
> and attribution clauses. I have two questions - can it still be done,
> what was working group answer to this, or if not, then why not.

If osm were to add this, then they would not have to relicense
everything and not have to ask everyone to "agree".
:D,
mike