[OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2

[Anthony]

On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 2:49 AM, Francis Davey <fjmd1a at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2 December 2010 15:43, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
>>
>> I have no idea why it was actually put there, but one positive thing
>> it does (besides nullifying the ODbL) is that it puts us all on an
>> equal footing with OSMF.
>>
>
> Pedantically: OSMF has obligations under the CT so there's no
> interpretation where the footing is equal or identical, but I see what
> you mean.

Okay, true.  I still think it accomplishes something very important
which is the status quo under CC-BY-SA.  OSMF doesn't get any special
rights which, for instance, a fork wouldn't have.

> My understanding was that this was not the intended outcome - that is
> that OSM data should not be freely usable by everybody who receives
> it.

You must know more than I do, because I don't think you can speculate
on the intent of a phrase without at least knowing who added it.  It
very well may have been added precisely for the effect of making
everything effectively PD.  I know that's the only reason I supported
CT 1.2, though I wasn't dumb enough (this time) to point it out.

> As I have already said, I'm not sure that your interpretation is 100%
> certain. The CT's at the moment place an obligation on OSMF to licence
> under one of a series of licences, which would be an odd requirement
> if such a licence were superfluous.

It's not superfluous, because the obligation on OSMF is to license the
contents *as part of a database*.  The ODbL applies to *the database*,
not the contents.  (In some/most/all jurisdictions, if you don't agree
to it, you can probably ignore it, because there aren't any rights in
the database.  But probably in at least some jurisdictions you can't
ignore it, due to sui generis database rights and/or sweat of the brow
copyright in the database itself).  Yes, it makes the DbCL part
superfluous, but as I've explained before the DbCL, if *it* does not
make the work effectively PD, is itself superfluous.  And if you look
at the history, the DbCL language was added at the same time the "and
any party that receives your contents" was taken out
(http://www.osmfoundation.org/index.php?title=License/Contributor_Terms&diff=231&oldid=204
which, by the way, was *after* the vote).

In any case, even if the requirement were superfluous (which, as I
explained, it isn't), I don't see any alternative explanation.

(*) It has been pointed out previously that we should probably
*require* OSMF to release the database under a free license, rather
than merely *allow* them to, but as it stands they may, but don't have
to.