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

[Simon Poole]

Since I don't beleive the current approach to handling imports
in the CTs is workable: no I haven't made any effort to make
the CTs 3rd party license compatible. But, yes, I've made
an alternative suggestion.

Essentially it boils down to the mapper importing data on behalf
of the OSMF, sidestepping the whole issue of 3rd party data 
being first licensed to the mapper and then sublicensed to the
OSMF.

Simon
 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard Fairhurst" <richard at systemed.net>
To: <legal-talk at openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 1:27 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2


> 
> Simon Poole wrote:
>> That however does require the importer/mapper to raise the 
>> issue to a level where that support exists. As the LWG has 
>> pointed out, that hasn't worked in the past, and there is IMHO 
>> no reason to believe that it will magically start working in the 
>> future.
> 
> Oh, sure, nothing "magically starts working". It requires willingness and
> commitment to make it work, just like everything else in OSM. I'm willing to
> put effort into licence compatibility (and have made suggestions to LWG,
> which they've taken up, to ensure CT compatibility with attribution-required
> licences). Are you?
> 
> Richard
> 
> 
> -- 
> View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/New-phrase-in-section-2-tp5793972p5815086.html
> Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>