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

[TimSC]

On 18/07/10 21:22, John Smith wrote:
> On 19 July 2010 06:18, TimSC<mapping at sheerman-chase.org.uk>  wrote:
>    
>> On 18/07/10 19:39, John Smith wrote:
>>      
>>> On 19 July 2010 04:30, TimSC<mapping at sheerman-chase.org.uk>   wrote:
>>>
>>>        
>>>> Also, if we really cared about share-alike, we would have it apply to
>>>> "produced works" - that would encourage companies to give back.
>>>>
>>>>          
>>>        
> Then why mention produced work, since ODBL and cc-by-sa both encourage
> sharing the underlying data?
>    
Share-alike of the underlying data is a separate issue from share-alike 
produced works (obviously). I am aware that ODbL doesn't do produced 
work share-alike because certain parties want to layer proprietary data 
with OSM data. I am saying that share-alike produced works would also 
encourage the sharing of data. Any data that is encorprated into a 
share-alike produced work can then be rolled back into OSM, not to 
mention making the rendering and colours available for reuse. This is 
the intention of the current license (although how effective it is is a 
separate controversy). What I fail to see is if share-alike is good one 
one case, why not in the other?

TimSC