On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:24:20 +0000 John Halton wrote: > On Jan 14, 2008 2:56 PM, Uwe Hermann <uwe@hermann-uwe.de> wrote: > > The Openstreetmap (OSM) project (http://openstreetmap.org/) currently > > licenses all data under the CC-by-sa 2.0 license. IIRC, some/most of the CC > > licenses had some problems wrt DFSG-freeness > > My understanding is that CC-by-sa 2.0 is regarded as non-free for DFSG > purposes. See: http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html. That is my opinion too. The Debian packager could exploit clause 4b (see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/legalcode) by modifying the OSM data and distribute them (as Derivative Works) under the terms of CC-by-sa-v3.0. But my opinion is that CC-by-sa-v3.0 also fails to meet the DFSG. See http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/03/msg00105.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/09/msg00176.html On the other hand, other people (including the FTP masters) seem to disagree with me and think that CC-by-sa-v3.0 meets the DFSG... :-( > > Can somebody please clarify whether the current CC-by-sa 2.0 data from OSM > > can be included in Debian? > > So my guess is that the answer to that question is "no" (at least as > regards inclusion in "main"). Agreed. My suggestion is: try and persuade upstream to change licensing policy (I admit it's a hard task, especially because I have the impression that the copyright holders are numerous...) and have the data re-licensed in a DFSG-free manner (e.g.: under the terms of GNU GPL v2). -- http://frx.netsons.org/progs/scripts/refresh-pubring.html New! Version 0.6 available! What? See for yourself! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpkoSCycLeTa.pgp
Description: PGP signature