On 19 July 2010 13:48, Michael Barabanov <[email protected]>wrote:
> Would specifying that the new license must be not just open/free but > specifically an SA-like license in contributor agreement solve this > particular issue? ODBL looks like SA in spirit. Further changing of > licenses could be a separate discussion, when/if there's a new need I believe that as long as the licence must be share-alike (for a given definition of "share-alike"), that should work, yes. Seems to me also that would address the concerns of a number of other contributors to the discussion, but I don't pretend to have followed in the exhaustive detail to know if the LWP had a good reason not to write it that way from the start :) Cheers b -- Ben Last Development Manager (HyperWeb) NearMap Pty Ltd
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
