[OSM-legal-talk] Unsetting CT flag

[Steve Bennett]

Hi all, thanks for the replies. I'll reply to specific, pertinent bits.

>2010-08-13 01:44:38.6323 UTC

Thanks. (Might be worth showing this in the GUI.)

> If Nearmap is CC-BY-SA, they're compatible now.

Wrong.

>You're not "operating in a totally difference licensing mode", the
>work is licensed under CC-BY-SA until the switchover.

The CTs have lots of other implications which have been well
discussed, so I won't repeat them here.

> My suggestion to you personally, if you don't like the project's
> terms, then you should stop submitting data to it immediately.

My issues with the CTs are not philosophical or aesthetic, but purely
practical and contractual.

>In this case, OSM knows you were authenticated, where you were
>authenticated from, and when you clicked the button and submitted the
>form.

Thanks, that answers my question.

>In other words, Steve, I think it was your talk I went to at SoTM,

Too many Steves - I haven't been to an SoTM. I am a nice guy though, really. :)

>The problem is by agreeing to the CT Steve has breached his contract
>with Nearmap, which in turn is a breach of CT terms so legally he had
>no right to agree to the CTs in the first place.

Thanks. Exactly what I was trying to say, but I failed.

>We're* also expecting to implement a way for you to flag edits that
>shouldn't be promoted to CT/ODbL, so you'll be able to accept CT, and
>flag those changesets that are incompatible individually.

Interesting. (I won't comment further here.)

>I think that the pertinent question is whether Steve deliberately
>accepted the CT and license or was he hijacked by a bad UI.

Yes. Well, that's the question I'm asking myself. I have no idea.
August is a while ago. Perhaps I skim read the text and thought "ODbL,
sure", without knowing the implications of what I was doing -
breaching the terms of my Nearmap user licence.

Could I point out that Wikipedia tells you *every single time you
edit* exactly what licence you're contributing under.

>Regarding data
>he's entered which is licensed by a third party, the third party needs
>to make the data available to OSM in a way that works with OSM's
>chosen license model, or else the data needs to be removed from OSM.

or else the CTs need to be made compatible with third party data
sources in general. (Unclear if "license model" includes CTs.)

>And unlike those other organizations, you have direct ability not
>only to accept or not accept the terms, but also to vote for the
>organization's leadership, which AFAIK, isn't an option for Google
>users.

Also to help shape those terms.

>Think long-term! This is not a clause aimed at next year.

The CTs are broken now, not next year, nor long-term.

>... because he has subsequently found out that he has no legal right to
>give that data to OSMF, and has infact commited an offence himself.

Not an "offence" - this is contract law, not criminal law. I think one
of these has/will happen(ed):
- I have unwittingly violated Nearmap's terms of use (by handing over
rights which I said I wouldn't do)
- I have violated OSMF's contributor terms (by handing over rights I don't have)

> no way to unset the flag and no
>way to register a new account with original contributor terms :(

What? Oh, fuck. That's really fucking bad.

So we have broken CTs, and absolutely no way to avoid them. Who the
fuck came up with that fucking stupid policy? With the greatest
respect for the LWG, who are acting in good faith, this strikes me as
dumb. As soon as the first problems with the CTs 1.0 were realised, it
should have been repealed, sent back for further analysis, then
version 1.1 brought out. Leaving a broken 1.0 version in place, and
giving no opt-out mechanism is terrible form.

Steve