[OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?

[John Smith]

On 17 July 2010 18:34, Heiko Jacobs <heiko.jacobs at gmx.de> wrote:
> I saw anywhere in the deeps of discussion at legal, that also
> the new licence does not protect data in australia ...? Mmmmh ...

No, someone was claiming cc-by licenses we're valid in Australia, as a
reason to change to ODBL, if that is the case why did both the federal
and state governments of Australia release data under cc-by if it was
so weak.

In theory we have more problems with the new terms and conditions than
ODBL, ODBL seems cc-by compatible, but the terms and conditions allow
other "free and open licenses" which isn't cc-by compatible. All that
is needed to fix this is add a stipulation for the "free and open
license" to be attribution based and the problem, for us, disappears.

The alternative isn't pretty, potentially up to 1/3rd of the data
might disappear, so we are some what concerned at this point.