[OSM-legal-talk] Using a WMS imagery with CC-BY4.0

[Mike Linksvayer]

CC has a process
https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/ShareAlike_compatibility_process_and_criteria

It has been followed for two licenses so far
https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/ShareAlike_compatibility:_FAL
https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/ShareAlike_compatibility:_GPLv3

Mike

On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Tom Lee <tlee at mapbox.com> wrote:
> Another update: I still haven't heard anything from the academic affiliated
> with CC with whom I had met, so I have to assume she's no longer interested
> in this project. That's a shame, but I know that OKFN is amenable to
> examining the question of compatibility more closely. I'll continue to look
> for ways to make this happen in 2016.
>
> On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 5:22 AM, Andrew Harvey <andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Sorry my mistake. Thanks for picking up on that.
>>
>> On 24/12/2015 9:01 pm, "Simon Poole" <simon at poole.ch> wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 23.12.2015 um 23:58 schrieb Andrew Harvey:
>>> > I'm really keen on seeing this compatibility question resolved too. CC
>>> > BY is becoming the standard license for government geospatial data in
>>> > Australia, and it would be much simpler to interchange data both ways
>>> There might be a misunderstanding there, CC by is not going to be an
>>> option as long as we have a licence with a share-alike component. The
>>> only thing that we are discussing for now is attribution only input
>>> licences.
>>>
>>> Simon
>>>
>>> > if it were compatible with the ODbL.
>>> >
>>> > On 15 July 2015 at 00:22, Tom Lee <tlee at mapbox.com> wrote:
>>> >> I'll add that I've been in touch with CC's US affiliate and they've
>>> >> expressed interest in resolving the compatibility question (either
>>> >> with
>>> >> formal guidance that applies to 4.0 or in preparation for the next
>>> >> license
>>> >> revision). That's on hold pending their availability at summer's end;
>>> >> stay
>>> >> tuned.
>>> >>
>>> >>> To clarify a bit, any CC licenses that are ND or NC are non-open and
>>> >>> clearly incompatible with the ODbL or any open license. CC BY SA 4.0
>>> >>> is
>>> >>> currently incompatible, but Creative Commons could change that.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> CC BY 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0 are clearly  incompatible, thanks to the
>>> >>> attribution requirements that can't be met.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> CC BY 4.0 has some open questions about compatibility.
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> legal-talk mailing list
>>> >> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
>>> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>>> >>
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > legal-talk mailing list
>>> > legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
>>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> legal-talk mailing list
>>> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> legal-talk mailing list
>> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>