On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 8:26 PM, Ulf Möller <[email protected]> wrote: > Rob Myers schrieb: > >>> A license which: >>> - preserves the freedoms to copy, share, modify and redistribute >>> and >>> - requires you to license derivative works under the same license. >> >> That covers CC-BY-NC-SA. ;-) > > Is that a problem? The current ODbL covers NC, just not SA.
When the ODbL covers *any* derivatives equally, NC should of course be covered. When the ODbL grants special status to copyleft licences, NC should not be covered by this. NC is not a "free" licence by any definition (the FSF, OSI, Debian or Freedom Defined). In practical terms it is not a copyleft licence as it does not pass on the copyright holder's right to sell copies of the work. So any criteria for compatible licences should exclude non-commercial licences, either by explicitly saying this or by acknowledging that people can charge for copies of the work. - Rob. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
