(this is a separate thread so I don't mind expressing my personal opinions)
Peter Miller wrote: > I have just been reading about the wikipedia foundation's recent vote to > start a process to migrate their project to CC-BY-SA > > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:License_update Yes, it's a really good move on their part, and achieved through some clever legal work. CC-BY-SA is much more explicit and unambiguous for their purposes (the GFDL article on Wikipedia shows some of the criticisms that Wikipedians have of their current licence), just as a data-focused licence could be for ours. It is worth noting that Wikipedia's licence has no effect on whether or not Wikipedia can use OSM maps. Wikipedia already admits images from a whole host of sources under "free licences", even with licences as obscure as "Trainweb" and "Ubisoft-screenshot" (!); if Wikipedia does move to CC-BY-SA, the Collective Work provision will would continue that. No licence OSM would ever consider moving to would be outwith Wikipedia's definition of a free licence - OSMers simply wouldn't agree to that! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/All cheers Richard _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
