[OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources

[David Groom]

> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Frederik Ramm" <frederik at remote.org>
> To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." 
> <legal-talk at openstreetmap.org>
> Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 12:16 AM
> Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
>
> Hi,
>
> David Groom wrote:
>> Your above paragrapgh neatly sums up to me why the CT's are incompatible 
>> with CC-BY, or CC-BY-SA, or indeed many more licences , in that 
>> compatability of the CT's could only be ensured if:
>> (a) There was some technical mechanism for fallginf data which needs to 
>> be removed , and there is no such mechanism; and
>> (b)  There was a guarntee that usch data "WOULD" be removed, and there is 
>> no such guarantee.
>
> As I understood it, the old CTs basically required the contributor to
> guarantee that his contribution was compatible with the CT, while the
> new CTs only require the contributor to guarantee that his contribution
> is compatible with whatever the current license is.
>
> You're right in that nobody guarantees that data would be removed in the
> event of a change of license, but I don't think that this puts the
> contributor in legal peril.
>
> I don't see any problem on the contributor's side. Where I see the
> problems with this approach is on the OSMF side.
>

The problem I have from a contributors side is that if, as a contributor I 
know there is no guarantee that incompatible data will be removed should a 
licence change occur, and if I know that given the current OSM set up there 
is in fact no technical mechanism that such data could be identified in the 
first place, then am I legally in a position to submit such data if I have 
agreed to the CT's (and /or can I agree to the CT's having submitted such 
data in the past).

Then of course there is the moral question as to whether I believe it would 
be right to submit such data.

David

> Bye
> Frederik