Anthony schrieb:
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Robert Kaiser<[email protected]> wrote:
Actually, IMHO, it's was wrong of the OSM project to do neither a copyright
assignment nor a license that has a clear clause on automatic possibility of
upgrade to a newer license in the same spirit (i.e. and "and later" clause).
Copyright assignment could never work on a project with 100,000 contributors.
So you say the GNU project should not work? Or the OpenOffice.org project?
CC-BY-SA 2.0 does have an "and later" clause.
Where "later", i.e. 3.0 explicitely does not apply to databases like
OSM. So only one more reason for us to switch elsewhere. But we know
that already.
And ODbL is not in the "same spirit" as CC-BY-SA, any more than LGPL
is in the "same spirit" as GFDL.
That's your opinion, and anyone with legal knowledge in here seems to
dispute both of those statements. But of course, you can't use a
documentation license for creative works, a code license for
documentation or a creative license for a mostly factual database - at
least not reasonably. And that's what all our relicensing is about in
the end.
Robert Kaiser
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
