[OSM-legal-talk] Compliance timeline
fjmd1a at gmail.com
Fri Apr 8 18:27:10 BST 2011
On 8 April 2011 18:10, Ed Avis <eda at waniasset.com> wrote:
> 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
That much is clear. The CT's impose various obligations on OSMF beyond
those under CC-BY-SA, in particular....
> in ODbL 1.0 is also nullified.
Assuming we are talking about:
Clause 3 restricts OSMF to a specific set of licences.
> 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)
They don't so specify. The list is disjunctive:
"only under the terms of one or more of the following licences: ODbL
1.0 for the database and DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the
database; CC-BY-SA 2.0; or such other free and open licence ..."
So OSMF may use any subset (including the empty set) of such licences.
More information about the legal-talk