On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Richard Weait <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 8:27 AM, John Smith <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On 24 April 2011 22:18, Alex (Maxious) Sadleir <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> As was said on talk, it seems pretty absurd to be moving an open > >> mapping project in 2011 such that it is shutting out Ordinance Survey > >> and NearMap when all they ask for is attribution. > > > > It's a GPL v BSD type issue, some people want share a like, others > > think a BSD/PD style license is the way to go, > > No. It's much closer to a Wikipedia transition from GNU FDL to > CC-By-SA. OpenStreetMap is moving to a license that is much better > suited to data, while maintaining the Share Alike and Attribution > aspects. > I dont understand this, because the GFDL and CC are largely compatible and there is a dual license, which is not the case here. with the new CT you are leaving the realm of copyleft totally, it becomes contract law and not copyright law. As far as I can tell, the ODBL is not compatible , but I dont really understand it. mike
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
