[OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms

[Richard Fairhurst]

[moved from talk@]

Dave F. wrote:
> On 13/08/2010 10:34, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>> ...(This is one of the reasons I'm not
>> greatly enamoured of the upgrade clause in CT 3.)
> Am I understanding this correctly?
> Of the people that drafted the CT, 50% now don't like it?

The Contributor Terms postdate my spell on OSMF; I wasn't involved in 
drafting them.

Some Contributor Terms are necessary. My own preference would be for 
ones that do less than the current set. However, my main concern is that 
ODbL itself is adopted: it's an excellent licence and much more suitable 
for OSM than CC-BY-SA.

As the Rolling Stones once sang, you can't always get what you want, so 
I'm happy to sign up for the current Contributor Terms if it means we 
get ODbL.

> Who's Jordan? (Lawyer?)

A specialist IP lawyer (though not OSMF's) and one of the authors of ODbL.

cheers
Richard