80n wrote: > It's my understanding that the ODbL is very different from a CC-BY-SA > license, so I think this would be a very unlikely thing to happen.
It's a share-alike licence with some attribution provision - I'd say that, in fact, the two licences have pretty much the same intent. It's just that one works for data and the other doesn't. "Two incompatible licences with the same intent" is broadly why FSF agreed to facilitate Wikipedia's migration to CC-BY-SA, too. > More importantly the Factual Information License, which is what > contributors > will actually be signing up to, is totally unlike CC-BY-SA in every > respect. Right - so is the proposal that contributors actually sign up to FIL? There's been some uncertainty over that in the past. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/%22A-Creative-Commons-iCommons-license%22-tp22260709p22260883.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
