On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 7:32 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yes, I'm also pretty sure that you can just completely ignore the > license since you're only using the data within your own organization. > The licence only kicks in when you're doing re-distribution to third > parties. > > (See e.g. Google's use of Linux, they don't re-distribute their > changes, and don't have to) That's a feature of the license, not of licensing schemes. A license may have any number of terms in. It might say that any changes (internal or not) are required to be redistributed back to the upstream provider. This is a term that the original Plan 9 license had, for example. The issue of "Redistribution" is complicated by the fact that various licenses use the term and some use other terms. For example the term is removed from GPLv3 and replaced with the word "Convey", which is defined[1]. The ODbL also uses the term "Convey" and defines it differently and then uses the term "Re-utilization" to mean something similar to what GPLv3 calls "Convey". The various licenses have various terms of usage, and I think what you (Ævar) are referring to is that GPL says in section 9 that acceptance of the license isn't required for anything other than modification and conveyance. But that's a feature of the GPL's wording. Similarly ODbL (and I'm only using ODbL because it's more clear)'s section 4 has fewer requirements for internal use than public use. In other words, the OP does have to comply to the license internally, but the burden of doing so for internal use is very low. - Serge [1] Defining what might otherwise seem straightforward terms is pretty common in contracts and actually clarifies what might otherwise be murky waters. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
