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

[Simon Ward]

On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 09:19:53PM +1000, John Smith wrote:
> On 18 July 2010 21:07, John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > but they haven't commented about the contributor terms, I sent them an
> > email about this but I'm waiting to hear back. If they balk at either
> > that would mean everything mapped from their imagery, which in several
> > rural and regional areas is considerable, would disappear as well.
> 
> I just received a reply, Nearmap will only allow derived data to be
> licensed under a share alike license, which means any data derived
> from their imagery, while compatible with ODBL, isn't compatible with
> the new CTs.

Is this an issue with the third (licensing/relicensing/sublicensing)
clause?  I never fully agreed with it in the first place.

If it is changed to allow relicensing to another share alike license
(probably quite difficult to describe legally without, uh, writing a
license) with the 2/3 majority would that be acceptable?

If the alternative licenses are completely removed from the contributor
terms would that fix it?

Is there an issue with using the DbCL for the contents of the database?

Simon
-- 
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20100718/5460afd8/attachment.pgp>