Am 23.12.2015 um 23:58 schrieb Andrew Harvey: > I'm really keen on seeing this compatibility question resolved too. CC > BY is becoming the standard license for government geospatial data in > Australia, and it would be much simpler to interchange data both ways There might be a misunderstanding there, CC by is not going to be an option as long as we have a licence with a share-alike component. The only thing that we are discussing for now is attribution only input licences.
Simon > if it were compatible with the ODbL. > > On 15 July 2015 at 00:22, Tom Lee <t...@mapbox.com> wrote: >> I'll add that I've been in touch with CC's US affiliate and they've >> expressed interest in resolving the compatibility question (either with >> formal guidance that applies to 4.0 or in preparation for the next license >> revision). That's on hold pending their availability at summer's end; stay >> tuned. >> >>> To clarify a bit, any CC licenses that are ND or NC are non-open and >>> clearly incompatible with the ODbL or any open license. CC BY SA 4.0 is >>> currently incompatible, but Creative Commons could change that. >>> >>> CC BY 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0 are clearly incompatible, thanks to the >>> attribution requirements that can't be met. >>> >>> CC BY 4.0 has some open questions about compatibility. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> legal-talk mailing list >> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk >> > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
