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

[Anthony]

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Ed Avis <eda at waniasset.com> wrote:
> Anthony <osm at ...> writes:
>>The stated
>>intention is "you grant a perpetual licence do do anything at all",
>>nothing about "we can therefore redistribute under practically any
>>free licence including PD", and nothing about "you have made sure that
>>your contributions are compatible with that".  Why are you adding
>>things that aren't there?
>
> I believe those are logical consequences of granting the perpetual licence
> to do any act etc.

How could it be?  You can't grant a license over content you don't
own, unless you have been given permission to sublicense it.

> However, even if they are logical consequences and don't
> strictly need to be stated, it would be good to add some redundant language
> just so that things are totally clear.

If that were the intent, it should be made clear.  But again, I don't
see how that is the intent.

The intent seems clear.  1) You grant a license to do anything.  You
waive all your rights in all your contributions (but obviously not
anyone else's).  2) You aren't violating anyone else's rights by
contributing the data.  3) You're not aware of any reason that OSMF
would not be allowed to redistribute the data under the *current*
license terms, (though you do not guarantee this).  4) You understand
that your data might be deleted in the future, either because the OSMF
is not allowed to redistribute it under the current license, or
because it isn't allowed to redistribute it under a future license.
5) OSMF agrees it will only license your data under ODbL, DbCL,
CC-BY-SA, or some other license that the community agrees to.  (And,
recalling 4, if that future license is incompatible with third party
copyrights, your data might be deleted.)

> However, note that I said 'if' - *if* that is the intention, then the CTs
> should say so.  If the intention is something else, they should say that.
> At the moment the intention is not entirely clear, if the confusion on this
> list is anything to go by.

Okay.  I agree with that.  So, if the intention of the CT is to do
what I said above, how would you suggest clarifying this?  How does
YouTube do it?

Maybe something like: "By granting us this license, You are not
required to grant us a license over any content for which you are not
the copyright holder."?