[OSM-legal-talk] New site about the license change

Richard Fairhurst richard at systemed.net
Tue Nov 16 15:55:22 GMT 2010


Ed Avis wrote:
> Speaking for yourself, would you be content with a dual licensing or some 
> other compromise to satisfy both camps? 

>From a legally-minded point of view, yes. I release all my OSM work as
public domain anyway and believe that CC-BY-SA is a deeply inequitable
licence when applied to data. Since dual licensing is by its nature more
permissive than a single licence (you may use whichever licence offers the
permissions you need), a putative "you may distribute under either CC-BY-SA
or ODbL" is actually slightly closer to what I personally believe.

>From a community-minded point of view, I'm less sure. The reason I support
ODbL is that it's a more equitable licence that fixes issues with CC-BY-SA
and that the community can get behind. I'd personally rather have PD, but
the community consensus is not there for that; and if the community wishes
to have a share-alike licence, I'm not comfortable with recommending a
"leaky" licence whose share-alike provisions can be trivially circumvented.

cheers
Richard


-- 
View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Re-OSM-legal-talk-talk-New-site-about-the-license-change-tp5743322p5744310.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.



More information about the legal-talk mailing list