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

[80n]

On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Francis Davey <fjmd1a at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 18 November 2010 10:14, Ed Avis <eda at waniasset.com> wrote:
> >
> > OK, in that case this needs to be clarified too, since we have all
> confused
> > ourselves on this list, and if we have done so others might too.
> >
> > So, in that case, if you must give sufficient permission to allow OSMF to
> choose
> > (pretty much) any licence it wants in future, it would not be possible to
> add
> > third-party data released under anything less than fully-permissive
> terms, even
> > if it happened to be compatible with the licence OSM uses at present.
>
> No. That's not the case and on this point the draft licence *is* clear
> enough in my view. Its important to read the existing draft as is,
> rather than recalling what earlier drafts said.
>
> The existing draft aims to allow:
>
> - the addition of data that the contributor themselves can licence -
> in this case the contributor grants a perpetual licence to OSMF to
> relicense it under whatever current licence is being used (subject to
> conditions that are being discussed - but "free and open" of some
> kind), you need the CT to license the data somehow, or OSMF won't know
> what they can do with it
>
> - addition of data licensed under some other licence which looks like
> (to the contributor) it is compatible with the OSMF's current licence
> - there is no need for the contributor to be sure about this, but OSMF
> makes it clear that this is what it would like
>
> In this case, where the content is from some third party and is currently
compatible with ODbL but may not be compatible with some future license, it
would be essential that detailed and accurate records of such contributions
are maintained.

There would need to be a record of which licenses apply to each edit made by
each contributor.  And come the time of a future license change there would
possibly be a purging of unsuitable content that would as problematic as the
one currently proposed.

To me, this looks like a recipe for chaos.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20101118/7dec9cf5/attachment.html>