[OSM-legal-talk] Licence Implementation plan - declines ornon-responses

andrzej zaborowski balrogg at gmail.com
Sun Aug 29 21:00:26 BST 2010

On 29 August 2010 16:44, David Groom <reviews at pacific-rim.net> wrote:
> What I'm not sure about is where in [2] it says
> *   Where attributes have changed:
>   *   If the specific tag deleted or changed existed in a prior version,
> roll back that tag to the latest prior version (which could mean re-adding
> deleted tags) and then roll forward subsequent edits to that tag.  Other
> tags should be unaffected.
> Then does that achieve it?
> Say users A& C accept the CT's, user B does not
> If user A adds a road and tags it highway=road
> user B tags does a proper survey and tags the road as highway = secondry
> user C notes the spelling error and changes the tag to highway = secondary
> If B's edits are rolled back, then C's edits applied, does not the data
> really contain the effect of B's survey?

As I see it, this is not a future problem, it has started to be a
problem on May 12 when the first mappers registered under the new CTs
and started contributing (retagging/merging/splitting etc).  These new
mappers, by signing the CT, claim that they are the copyright holders
or have an explicit permission from the copyright holder to submit
data to OSM so that it can be released by OSMF under CC-By-SA, ODbL or
a future license agreed to by 2/3 of the active contributors.  This is
not true because the data they are editing is downloaded from the API
under CC-By-SA only and even most of the new data they add is derived
from the CC-By-SA data being edited.


More information about the legal-talk mailing list