On 14 February 2012 03:17, Simon Poole <si...@poole.ch> wrote: > I believe there is some contention as to what in 1.a "current licence > terms" refers to, but it is at least consistent with the document to assume > that it refers to the licences listed in 3., so both CC-by-SA 2.0 and ODbL > + DbCL1.0 , implying that any imports have to be compatible with both*. I > can't put my finger on an formal statement by the LWG that would indicate > otherwise, can you? >
I can't remember hearing any authoritative answers from the LWG on this, but it has been discussed a few times before. The answer I got when I asked, and almost all the answers I've seen to other people's questions since, are that it only has to be compatible with the current license we distribute the DB under (i.e. CC-BY-SA right now). For example http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2011-April/005916.html. One problem with taking it to mean that any uploads must be compatible with both CC-BY-SA and ODbL+DbCL is that what it post-changeover. The same logic would then say that anything uploaded must be compatible with CC-BY-SA, which I would think is not what people want it to mean. -- James
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
