Hi, On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 22:33:59 +0200 andrzej zaborowski <balr...@gmail.com> wrote: > That's not the point, you still can't mix the future OSM data with > CC-By-SA data in the same database and publish that. This ability to > "mix" is one of the main features of free licensing and if you're > using a license incompatible with every other project, your data > becomes useless for a lot of uses.
Err... share-alike licenses rarely allow any mixing. CC-BY-SA cannot be mixed with CC-BY-SA-NC; neither of them can be mixed with GFDL or GPL... so nothing new here: Any share-alike provision reduces usefulness. ODbL, with its lack of share-alike for produced works, is already one of the more liberal share-alike licenses. Of course, dropping share-alike altogether would make OSM even more useful in the sense that you describe. What you're proposing (or seconding) here is quite difficult; it would mean having a second licensing model inside OSM and having to track exactly what is derived from what in order to find out which license can be applied. It is much more than just a flag on a user page. My recommendation is to stop the brouhaha. OSM will be using ODbL for at least a couple of years now. If you want your data to be used by others as well, then upload it to a second database (should be easy to do a JOSM-dual-upload plugin). Make sure, of course, that you do not take liberties with dual-licensing the data of others! It is not impossible that, come CC-BY-SA 4, OSM might decide to use that. If you think it is important, then take part in the development of CC-BY-SA 4 and make sure it works for OSM; that will certainly heighten the chances of it ever being used in OSM. But dual-licensing, or worse, dual-licensing of a subset of the database, seems difficult. Bye Frederik _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
