IANAL, but as long as the data is currently being released as CC-BY-SA, then there is no breach of the CC license.
CC-BY-SA only stipulates that the data, when published, must be under CC-BY-SA. It doesn't say that you cannot enter contracts promising to release the data *in the future* under another license. If the data will be released *in the future* under a different license, then it's true that the CC license is breached. But, in the case of OSM-ODbL, assuming that all the ODbL rejectors' IP will be removed before the actual relicensing, since what remains is the IP of all who have agreed to the CT, then it's like everyone mutually agreed to relicense their own data under a new license, thus, not breaching the CC license. On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 5:39 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote: > It would seem to me that anyone who has agreed to the contributor > terms and who then edits content that is published by OSM is in breach > of the CC-BY-SA license. > > Currently the OSM database is published as a CC-BY-SA work. If that > content is downloaded from the OSM database and modified then this > creates a derived work. > > If that derived work is loaded back to OSM then it can only be done so > under the same license by which it was received, namely CC-BY-SA. > That's the nature of the share alike clause in CC-BY-SA. But anyone > who has agreed to the contributor terms is claiming that they can > contribute this content under a different license. > > Now I know that it is the intention of OSMF to delete any such > content, but in fact anyone who has edit such CC-BY-SA derived works > is already in actual breach of the license under which they *received* > that content. > > If you have agreed to the contributor terms you are likely to be > breaching the terms of CC-BY-SA. > _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
