> The new license - the Open Database License (ODBL) - is well understood.
I wonder if this is a typo? Certainly its effects are not well understood, neither directly on publishers and users (as "could be interesting" later implies), nor on the open data/content ecosystem, specifically interoperability with existing large datasets under CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, or in the public domain (e.g., from Freebase, Wikipedia-derived, and government, research, and other sources) -- ODBL does have some provisions to mitigate compatibility problems for some use cases (produced works), but it isn't clearly classically compatible with other commonly used terms, except for public domain as a donor.
Creative Commons has been following this saga with great interest, both because OSM is a fantastic project, probably second only to Wikipedia in demonstrating the the utility of free-as-in-freedom terms outside of software, and because data is an increasingly important part of the open ecosystem. What we've learned from OSM informs an upcoming contemporary statement on CC licenses and public domain tools for data, as well as upcoming work on version 4.0 of the CC license suite, which will make every effort to address the needs of the open data ecosystem for which CC is the most important steward of legal tools.
We haven't said anything directly concerning OSM's possible migration to ODBL so far, both because it is up to the OSM community, and much of the debate has been about contributor terms, orthogonal to the license used. However, we have begun to work more closely with open data stakeholders, and want to take the opportunity to dispel any myth that CC licenses can't be used for data or that CC doesn't care about data -- neither could be further from the truth.