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

[John Smith]

On 19 July 2010 07:59, SteveC <steve at asklater.com> wrote:
> Okay - you're saying that nearmap's concern is attribution?

Surprisingly no, they don't require attribution, which is weird in and
of itself, but do require any derived map data to be made available
under a share alike license, so that they can make use of it. They
give us free use of their imagery in return they get to use the data,
which seems fair and equitable to me.

> Here's another scenario - You could say to nearmap that when we switch over to odbl they switch off the aerial imagery but allow us to keep using the data so far under the odbl. When things have settled down in X number of months and they see we're not going to jump license again any time soon then they can start letting us use the imagery again?

We all have our own agendas and biases, but you can't say 2 or 3 years
or even 6 months from now that the derived data won't suddenly be
pushed under a different, non-share alike license. At that point there
is no sections that cover incompatible license data, in fact just the
opposite, the data continues under a different license if enough
active contributors agree, which is why even cc-by data won't be
compatible.

Even with the most honourable intentions none of us can know what the
future will bring, but I can only point and push for things in my
interests, which at this stage section 3 of the new CTs ain't it.