If every license was perfect, we wouldnt need lawyers... On Mar 4, 2017 10:03 AM, "Stewart C. Russell" <scr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2017-03-04 09:09 AM, James wrote: > > As the LWG said, it's not a blanket acceptance of all OGL variants, but > > if future licenses we come across are exactly the same(kdiff of text or > > something as proof) except the city/entity name. We will have a strong > > case that it is compatible with ODbL. > > Yes, it would definitely help to show that the text of a new licence is > only trivially different from an accepted one. We'd still need to run it > past the LWG, though. Any new licence creates new obligations for the > Foundation. Sometimes these new obligations are trivial, but they need > to be recognized. > > > So if future cities are looking to change their license they can use > > Ottawa license as an example so they are sure it's compatible > > Ottawa's licence isn't exactly a shining example. It was good they > changed their licence from a grievously incompatible one after you > contacted them about it. > > Annoyances with the Ottawa licence include: > > * it still includes the third party rights exemption that was brought > over from the UK licence. I don't see any way that this will go away > for existing data. > > * it doesn't have the statement on compatibility that the UK OGL > licence includes. This would definitely ease adoption. > > cheers, > Stewart > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-ca mailing list > Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca >
_______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
