[OSM-legal-talk] [DRAFT] Contributor Terms 1.2
reviews at pacific-rim.net
Thu Nov 18 11:38:02 GMT 2010
----- Original Message -----
From: "Francis Davey" <fjmd1a at gmail.com>
To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." <legal-talk at openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 2:50 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [DRAFT] Contributor Terms 1.2
> On 17 November 2010 13:30, David Groom <reviews at pacific-rim.net> wrote:
>> If there is no guarantee that data which has been contributed under one
>> licence will not be removed if it is incompatible with any future licence
>> chosen, then it will restrict what data can be added, and who will be
>> to agree to the CT's.
> That's a misunderstanding of the draft. A contributor may contribute
> any data that is presently compatible (as far as they can see). OSMF
> aren't obliged to deal with the situation if, later, that data is not
> then compatible, but that doesn't either affect the contrbutor or
> cause the contributor any difficulty. Its not their faulr if OSMF
> misuse data at a later stage.
Lets say I have some data which has some restrictive licence, but I have
satisfied myself that that licence is compatible with OSM's current licence.
Are you saying that under the draft CT's:
a) Its OK for me to add that data to OSM, even though I don't know whether
any future licence may be compatible with the original data's licence;
or are you saying that;
b) I cant add the data as I don't know whether any future licence may be
compatible with the original data's licence.
>> I would prefer to see CT's such as
>> "(b) If we suspect that any contributed data is incompatible [(in the
>> that we could not continue to lawfully distribute it)] with whichever
>> licence or licences we are then using (see sections 3 and 4), then we
>> delete that data temporarily or permanently.
> Is exactly what you don't want because its a *promise* by OSMF to do
> something if there is a suspicion. I doubt you'd want to tie OSMF's
> hands in that way.
Actually that is exactly what I did want. In that if data was added which
has an original licence which is incompatible with any future licence chosen
by OSMF, then I think the moral and legal responsibility is that the data
should be removed.
>They might want to take legal advice, or approach
If they take legal advice and the advice is the data is compatible then I
see no problem
> the rights holder or do something else, perhaps even challenge the
If they approach the rights holder, and the rights holder says its OK to
continue having the data in OSM , then I see no problem
> rights holder over it (as wikipedia has done with the national
> portrait gallery). The draft at the moment permits OSMF to do
> something but doesn't require them to.
Its just the idea that OSM may change the licence, and then leave data in
the database which is based on a source which is no longer compatible with
the new licence, which concerns me.
> Francis Davey
More information about the legal-talk