[OSM-legal-talk] Nearmap vs CTs: any progress?

[Anthony]

On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 2:33 AM, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
> Is that the only way to read the terms?  Paragraph 2 merely say that
> "you", the person uploading the data, grant a license to OSMF.
> Paragraph 2 does not warrant that *no one else* (e.g. Nearmap) might
> *also* have rights which still need to be respected.

This is especially clear in version 1.2
(https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_933xs7nvfb).

1(a):  You have permission to contribute the data.  (seems fine with
regard to Nearmap, not fine with regard to, say, Google Maps data)
1(b):  If your contributions are incompatible with the license being
used, we will remove it.  (fine with regard to Nearmap, so long as
ODbL is being using, and might need to be removed if some other
license is used) (*)
2: You (the contributor) grant "a worldwide, royalty free..." (no
mention there that *Nearmap* grants such a license, only that "you",
the contributor, grant it)

One caveat:  I have no idea if version 1.2 is going to be the official
version of the contributor terms, and, if so, whether or not people
who have already agreed to 1.0 will have the opportunity (or the
requirement) to upgrade to it.  What exactly is the status of 1.2?

(*) I'm not sure how this interacts with DbCL, though.