On 02/03/2009, Ed Avis <[email protected]> wrote: > MP <singularita <at> gmail.com> writes: > > >As for the people who can't be reached/refused to accept new license - > >what about tagging such data with some tag like "license=cc_by_sa" to > >warn people that this part is licensed otherwise and keep the data in > >database? > > > I don't think that would work. If some parts of the data are CC-BY-SA, and > some > parts are under a new licence, then the resulting database )or maps derived > from
Well, if you need the data for personal use - you can use them even with mixed license. If you need to distribute them, etc ... you could filter the cc-by-sa data out. This would allow the remaining cc-by-sa data to be iteratively deleted and then redrawn under "correct" license. I think this could be viable, if there would be only small part of such data. (so the period in which the data won't be properly distributable will be quite small, perhaps few days till all is redrawn) Martin > it) would be a derived work of both. That means that it can be distributed > only > under CC-BY-SA, and also that it can be distributed only under the new > licence. > The result would be that you cannot legally distribute it at all. > > Presumably OSM chose CC-BY-SA to stop other organizations taking the OSM data > and distributing it under different conditions. Even if only some of the > data > in your work is OSM data licensed CC-BY-SA, you must distribute the whole > work > under that licence, or not at all. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for > the > gander. > > > -- > Ed Avis <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
