[OSM-talk] OSM France "BANO" project... openaddresses in France

[Tobias Knerr]

On 15.05.2014 19:57, THEVENON Julien wrote:
> According to CT terms ( cf below ) I assume that a new licence should
> maintain the share-alike of ODBL

I believe you are misunderstanding that paragraph of the CT. The license
needs to be free and open, but there are many licenses that qualify -
including ones like CC-BY without a share alike condition.

> or such other free and open
> licence (for example, http://www.opendefinition.org/okd/) as may from
> time to time be chosen by a vote of the OSMF membership and approved by
> at least a 2/3 majority vote of active contributors. )

This is the relevant part: Besides the explicitly listed licenses, the
future OSM community also has the option of choosing any other free and
open license through a vote. When you look at the open definition linked
there, it states that share-alike is acceptable, but in no way does it
exclude non share-alike licenses.

But don't make the mistake to think that this entire discussion is
irrelevant if you want to keep share alike. What if someone creates
another Share Alike license that is a lot better than ODbL? It's not
that unlikely - after all ODbL didn't exist a few years ago either. An
ODbL import would be in the way of switching to that license, too.