[OSM-legal-talk] Factual Information License and Produced Works?
frederik at remote.org
Mon Mar 2 11:52:17 GMT 2009
> When the community is asked to vote on the license change it is the FIL that
> they need to consider not the ODbL.
I propose that we start working on the wording of the messages that
users will receive, i.e. the initial E-Mail, and the dialogue messages
they see on osm.org when they are asked to say yes to the license change
(plus the notices greeting those who newly sign up afterwards). These
things are an important part of the license change and are likely to be
legally very relevant in many jurisdictions.
> There doesn't seem to be anything in
> the FIL that binds it to ODbL.
I don't think it is designed to be bound to the ODbL, generally.
> Anyone contributing their work under this
> license is assigning away virtually all rights to OSM and there is nothing
> that then requires OSM to use ODbL or any other license.
I think this can be remedied quite easily, without changing a word on
When the data travels from the mapper to the OSM server, we have a very
simple, well-established and authenticated one-to-one relationship. We
do not need any complicated license here, a simple contract will do:
"By uploading your data to the OSM server, you agree that OSM will
publish your data under the FIL as part of an ODbL licensed database.
You do not grant any other permission than that; notably you do not
grant permission for OSM to release your data under FIL outside of an
ODbL licensed database."
Or something like that.
But as I said, we should really start writing these messages and notices
now, not least because it is likely that in doing so we uncover further
license weaknesses that need to be fixed before we can accept it.
More information about the legal-talk