[OSM-talk] Thank you, LWG

[Ed Avis]

Jonas Krückel <osm <at> jonas-krueckel.de> writes:

>I'm not sure if the CC-BY-SA license is really simpler than ODbL. Just look at
>this website here http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/summary/ and
>you'll see that the ODbL is as simple as CC-BY-SA.

That summary page is great but unfortunately it's not what is on offer.
The real text of the ODbL is much more complex, starting off with advice to
'Please seek the advice of a suitably qualified legal professional licensed to
practice in your jurisdiction before using this document' and not getting any
simpler from there.

If someone turned that summary page into a licence document, I'd be pretty
happy to use that.  (Such a licence would look pretty similar to the CC-BY-SA we
use currently.)

>Plus it's now clear how to attribute correct and when your derived work also
>has to be ShareAlike and when not.

Well, perhaps.  The attribution is certainly clearer.

-- 
Ed Avis <eda at waniasset.com>