[OSM-legal-talk] [Osmf-talk] New license proposal status II
Ed Avis
eda at waniasset.com
Thu Dec 3 14:23:14 GMT 2009
80n <80n80n at ...> writes:
>>>However, if the policy is that no data (ODbL or otherwise) can be imported
>>>without agreement to contributor terms that allow broad relicensing, then in
>>>practice data derived from the OSM data cannot be merged back in without
>>>special permission. This does seem to defeat most of the point of share-
>>>alike licensing.
>>This is the main point of what I was getting at. We'll have to see what the
>>LWG thinks,
>This issue was raised some months ago and considered by the LWG. It's point 15
>in this document: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_0hnnw6tc9
>As far as I can see it remains unresolved.
The annotation says 'Contributor Terms do not need to be the sole method of
contributing data.', which makes you wonder what is the point of imposing them.
Either data can be added to OSM by licensing it under the ODbL (which is the
same licence the OSM project is willing to grant to individuals), or it cannot
be added without also agreeing to some extra terms. If the former, then the
contributor terms on the site should be made optional, apart from agreeing to
ODbL-licence your contributions. (I would prefer not to see a situation where
certain people or organizations are permitted to add data to OSM without
agreeing to the standard terms, while everyone else is not.) If the latter,
then there isn't really an effective share-alike provision, in the sense of
making sure derived data can be added back into OSM.
--
Ed Avis <eda at waniasset.com>
More information about the legal-talk
mailing list