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

[Ed Avis]

Francis Davey <fjmd1a at ...> writes:

>>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

>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

That all makes sense but even in the revised 1.2 draft it is not implied by
the language.  The CTs ask you to grant an unlimited licence over the Contents,
without any exemption from this requirement if some rights in the Contents are
held by third parties.  Since I cannot grant an unlimited licence to Contents
derived from Ordnance Survey OpenData, I cannot agree to the CTs.

See elsewhere on this thread where I suggest a clarified wording.

>I'd prefer some way of saying "I got this data from X", much as
>wikipedia does for image uploads.

Yes, I believe that each upload should be tagged with the data sources used.
(The practice of adding source tags to each object on the map is impractical
in my view.)

-- 
Ed Avis <eda at waniasset.com>