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

[Ben Last]

On 19 July 2010 13:48, Michael Barabanov <michael.barabanov at gmail.com>wrote:

> Would specifying that the new license must be not just open/free but
> specifically an SA-like license in contributor agreement solve this
> particular issue?  ODBL looks like SA in spirit.  Further changing of
> licenses could be a separate discussion, when/if there's a new need


I believe that as long as the licence must be share-alike (for a given
definition of "share-alike"), that should work, yes.  Seems to me also that
would address the concerns of a number of other contributors to the
discussion, but I don't pretend to have followed in the exhaustive detail to
know if the LWP had a good reason not to write it that way from the start :)

Cheers
b

-- 
Ben Last
Development Manager (HyperWeb)
NearMap Pty Ltd
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20100719/a395e36d/attachment.html>