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

[Simon Poole]

Mike, my understanding of the process in question determines if
adaptations of CC by-SA material can be licensed on terms of the
compatible license.

While it would certainly be possible to carry out such a process for the
ODbL (that is if the licence related activities of the OKF were not a
prime candidate for the well known Frank Zappa quote "Jazz isn't dead.
It just smells funny"), from an OSM contributor pov  it doesn't make
sense to tie our hands by using restrictively licensed material that
would just have to be removed in the case of any change to our current
distribution licence.

Attribution only licences and explicit permissions given with
attribution requirement are far less problematic, given on the one hand
that we other attribution in the contributor terms and on the other
hand, just for practical reasons, we will likely always have a licence
with an attribution requirement.

Simon

Am 24.12.2015 um 17:49 schrieb 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20151228/ee034ec5/attachment.sig>