On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 6:23 AM, <ke...@cordina.org.uk> wrote: > It strikes me as two issues - changing to ODbL and, separately, the inclusion > of a > clause in the CTs allowing a future unspecified relicensing by the OSMF. The > two > aren't, necessarily, interlinked.
And for some reason the part about the DbCL gets swept under the rug and ignored. The clause in the CTs which is now causing so much trouble is: "You hereby grant to OSMF a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable license to do any act that is restricted by copyright over anything within the Contents, whether in the original medium or any other. These rights explicitly include commercial use, and do not exclude any field of endeavour. These rights include, without limitation, the right to sublicense the work through multiple tiers of sublicensees." And yet the DbCL, which isn't even mentioned, contains a clause which reads: "The Licensor grants to You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable copyright license to do any act that is restricted by copyright over anything within the Contents, whether in the original medium or any other. These rights explicitly include commercial use, and do not exclude any field of endeavour. These rights include, without limitation, the right to sublicense the work." > I haven't heard any fundamental objection to moving to ODbL ODbL does have a couple fundamental flaws compared to CC-BY-SA. It requires distribution of the underlying database when distributing a work produced from the database, and it allows proprietary maps to be produced from ODbL databases. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
