[OSM-legal-talk] Compliance timeline

Ed Avis eda at waniasset.com
Fri Apr 8 18:10:46 BST 2011


Simon Poole <simon at ...> writes:

>The OSMF has a binding contract with a large number of mappers,
>representing a substantial part (actually the majority) of the OSM data, that
>specifies CC-by-SA 2.0, ODbL 1.0 and DbCL 1.0 or a vote on a new license.
>As I understand it, the automatic upgrade clause in CC-by-SA 2.0 would only be
>effective for a licensee (that received the data under 2.0) that wants to
>distribute the data under a higher version.

Interesting.  So in your view the newer CTs restrict the OSMF in certain ways
that wouldn't be the case if mappers simply licensed their data to the OSMF under
CC-BY-SA 2.0.  I suppose that by the same logic the automatic upgrade provision
in ODbL 1.0 is also nullified.

If the CTs specify CC-BY-SA 'and' ODbL 'and' DbCL, does that mean the OSMF is
free to distribute under any of those it chooses, or must it be all three?
(according to your reading of the proposed CTs)

-- 
Ed Avis <eda at waniasset.com>




More information about the legal-talk mailing list