On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Frederik Ramm <[email protected]> wrote: > We can simply decide to re-license, then ask everyone to agree, then > disallow contributions from people who haven't agreed. All the time, the > planet is still under CC-BY-SA. Then we evaluate the losses. Say we find > that 20% of data has not been relicensed. Ok, we start working on replacing > that data, using the work of people who are ok with ODbL. After a while, > only 10% of "old" data is still there. We continue, with the planet still > under CC-BY-SA. After another while, we have brought down the losses to 1%, > or 0.1%, or whatever. At that time we throw out the rest and publish the > planet under ODbL.
Presumably the CC-BY-SA data would be locked, so that it can't be edited, only deleted and replaced? I think 20% is a very optimistic estimate of how little data will not be relicensed. And keeping the CC-BY-SA data around while you're making the ODbL data is just going to promote copying. But otherwise, seems like the best you can do. > Who cares if that time is one year in the future? Who cares if that time is never? _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
