80n wrote: > No. CC-BY-SA does not have a class of derivative works that are not > share alike. ODbL does.
No it doesn't, that's the entire point of what I said. (Is this the five-minute argument or the full half-hour?) This is what 4.7 in ODbL is all about. The data is still "protected", if that's the kind of language you like, by share-alike at all times. > As I understand it Jordan is not our lawyer and cannot advise us on > whether or not we should use the FIL. So now I am utterly confused. Some people called Wilson Sonsini have advised us to use ODbL in a manner which is not, AIUI, the manner recommended by the licence co-author, who one would presume understands these things. And here I am debating with an OSMF board member who appears to be arguing _against_ the licence being recommended by OSMF. What on earth is going on? Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/%22A-Creative-Commons-iCommons-license%22-tp22260709p22262758.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
