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

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

80n wrote:
> Share alike is a very simple thing to define.  If you receive
> something you can only distribute it under exactly the same terms that
> you received it.

According to *that* definition, ODbL is not a share-alike license. The 
poster to whom I replied, however, seemed to be of the opinion that data 
he receives under the provision "share alike only" was ODbL compatible.

Not even CC-BY-SA is a share-alike license according to your definition 
because you may distribute data received under CC-BY-SA under a higher 
version of the license, which may contain whatever terms Creative 
Commons deem suitable.

So either your "simple" definition of share-alike is correct and 
everyone in real life is doing it wrong. Or maybe it is too simple.

Which was precisely the point I was trying to make.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"