[OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions

andrzej zaborowski balrogg at gmail.com
Fri Sep 3 20:04:41 BST 2010


On 3 September 2010 20:32, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
> That poll is a bit misleading because there are two potential problems
> with imports.  One is the relicensing clause, but the other is the

That's true, but the poll shows the point (to the extent that polls
can show anything) that some issues are not part of that "consensus"
which some people claim there is (even if as they said consensus is
compromise, which sounds just wrong to me).

> "grant to OSMF a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual,
> irrevocable license to do any act that is restricted by copyright over
> anything within the Contents, whether in the original medium or any
> other".  It's hard to see how the ODbL can work without the latter.

Risking going a little off-topic, some members of the LWG have
expressed that CC-By compatibility should be a solvable problem.  Any
change I can imagine that would solve the CC-By compatibility would
also solve ODbL compatibility, because they're both affected by this
problem, no? (assuming that the relicense clause isn't there)


More information about the legal-talk mailing list