On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 18:07, Jonathon Rossi <[email protected]> wrote:
> True, but that quote was that they wouldn't relicense under the ODbL. I > hadn't really thought about it as relicensing, but by definition removing a > clause would be a modified license. Interesting that heaps of other > agencies are granting OSM a modified license, obviously in addition to > everyone else getting it under CCBY4. > I'm not sure. > The OSMF waiver asks for the licensor to allow copy protection on > derivative works. IANAL but am unclear which part of the CCBY4 clause > prevents copy protection on your derivative works if you in parallel > provided all CCBY4 "Licensed Material" unrestricted. > > > [...] the Licensed Material *if doing so restricts* exercise of the > Licensed Rights by any recipient of the Licensed Material > Yep that's the clause. You might get more of an answer on the legal-talk mailing list. IANAL either so all we can do is abide by the current guidance from the licensing working group.
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
