Ed Avis e...@... writes:
Perhaps there should be a meta-contributor-terms where you agree to
accept future
contributor terms proposed by the OSMF. Then there wouldn't be the need to
re-ask everybody each time the contributor terms change.
Insurance companies would love this idea :)
andrzej zaborowski balr...@... writes:
To answer Steve's question: yes, neither CC-By-SA
nor ODbL nor CC-By-SA and ODbL dual-license are compatible with the
current contributor terms.
Or, in other words, OSM itself is not compatible with them.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
On 5 October 2010 08:28, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
andrzej zaborowski balr...@... writes:
To answer Steve's question: yes, neither CC-By-SA
nor ODbL nor CC-By-SA and ODbL dual-license are compatible with the
current contributor terms.
Or, in other words, OSM itself is not compatible
Grant Slater openstreet...@... writes:
neither CC-By-SA
nor ODbL nor CC-By-SA and ODbL dual-license are compatible with the
current contributor terms.
Or, in other words, OSM itself is not compatible with them.
Automatic presumed compatibility no. Receiving permission from
restrictive data
To come back on topic, I don't think this has made legal-talk yet. Thanks to
Jordan Hatcher, whose mail I am re-working:
The new UK Open Government Licence is now out:
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/open-government-licence.htm
At 09:03 AM 5/10/2010, Jukka Rahkonen wrote:
Ed Avis e...@... writes:
Perhaps there should be a meta-contributor-terms where you agree to
accept future
contributor terms proposed by the OSMF. Then there wouldn't be the need to
re-ask everybody each time the contributor terms change.
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 3:28 AM, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
A CC-BY-SA license *is* an explicit permission to you by the rights holder.
So that is not a problem and we will revise the CTs to better communicate
that in plain language.
What I was getting at:
1) The CTs require that
