[OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass

[Rob Myers]

On 07/16/2010 09:49 AM, Anthony wrote:
>
>     ODbL is a comparable licence to BY-SA, with the main change being
>     that it has actually been written to cover data.
>
> That's not at all correct.  The main change between BY-SA and ODbL is
> the requirement to release the database whenever you use the database.
>
> Personally, I think that's a horribly onerous requirement.

You are required to make an *offer*, only to *users* (not the world), 
whenever you Use it *publicly*.

It's a source provision requirement, which makes sense given how 
databases are used to create maps (or whatever). This has precedents in 
copyleft software licences and it is a means of ensuring that users of 
OSM data are all free to use that data.

Which is the intent of using BY-SA but yes source provision is a 
material change. I do not personally regard it as the main change but I 
can understand how people who will actually have to provide the data would.

Looking at the wording, 4.6 appears to be intended to be equivalent to 
the (A)GPL. I do not believe it is any more onerous than the (A)GPL 
unless I am missing something.

- Rob.