2009/11/3 Anthony <[email protected]>: > True. I should have said "a non-copyleft license" rather than "public > domain". CC-BY would probably be easier to implement than public > domain, actually.
Actually that's a good point, with CC-BY-SA it's obvious where it came from, public domain can take a lot of effort to prove it's public domain. > It's geodata. The binary is the source. It's data, not source code, however that wasn't my point, my point was GPL requires you distribute the source code if you distribute binaries, CC-BY-SA doesn't require any such thing, you can convert the data into raster format and still not be required to distribute the modified data, although it is encouraged. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
