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

[Grant Slater]

On 7 December 2010 22:53, Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch> wrote:
>
> Franics writes:
>>
>> What do you suggest? The only practical option I can see is for OSMF
>> to supply a list of approved third party licenses that are
>> "compatible" with OSMF and refuse anything not licensed under one of
>> those.
>
> This or a list of approved sources as I have already suggested.
> The current wording in the CTs 1.2 simply throws us back to the pre-CT 1.0
> state (depending on the mapper to make a decision on licensing issues). The
> LWG actually knows that this doesn't work, but obviously doesn't want to
> actually do anything about it.
>
> See https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_86hf7fnqg8 "4. Data Imports"
>

"Importer" in that context sits better than "mapper". The person who
imports data needs to make a decision on licensing terms, this has
always been the case.
The import guidelines strongly advise:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines
Imports like "BP service stations Australia" are a problem, because
the importer did not state the license and the LWG on contacting the
supplier of the data says that the data is only for personal use. (I
am still following up this case.) This is a problem under CC-BY-SA or
ANY future license.

Your remark of "LWG... doesn't want to actually do anything about it."
doesn't ring true to the text or the subsequent work LWG has been
doing.

Kind regards
 Grant
 LWG member.