[OSM-legal-talk] [DRAFT] Contributor Terms 1.2

[kevin at cordina.org.uk]

Looks good.

My concern is still with the option to licence the data under any "free and open" licence.  Since this has unspecified bounds, I don't see how any data with any restrictions whatsoever can be contributed as those restrictions could be broken in the future.

Looking at this the eyes or a data-holder, say the OS, who is considering  allowing data to be used this would be a big concern as the term means they would lose control over how their data is licensed.

As I said in another thread, I think there is a big difference between "free and open" and "similar" as per ODbL.  It would be hard to argue that a hypothetical licence that contradicted a term of ODbL was similar, but it could well still be free and open.  Since ODbL is free and open any similar licence must arguably also be free and open, so I see the similar requirement as tighter.

I see a few solutions (a) remove the reference totally, but assuming the clause was included for a good reason this seems unlikely, (b) mirror the "similar" language which should ease concerns about losing control, (c) add a requirement that somehow allows the owner of data to object to a licence change to their data and withdraw it from a relicensed OSM (complex and possibly impractical).

Kevin

------Original Message------
From: Richard Weait
Sender: legal-talk-bounces at openstreetmap.org
To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
ReplyTo: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Sent: 17 Nov 2010 02:30
Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] [DRAFT] Contributor Terms 1.2

There have been several revisions to a new draft of the Contributor
Terms from the LWG over the last few meetings.

https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_933xs7nvfb

Various draft versions have been around for a while.  I think we've
improved the CT with each revision.  LWG have had some wonderful
suggestions from members of the community that are incorporated in the
current draft.

On the other hand it feels like there have been more folks with
criticisms of CT v1.0 than there are folks who have taken the time to
offer a patch.  So I'm particularly interested in hearing from those
who criticize CT v1.0.  What do you think of the current draft of the
contributor terms?  Is this an improvement?  What aspects address your
concerns regarding previous versions?  What aspects could be further
improved and how?

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk


Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device