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

[David Groom]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "andrzej zaborowski" <balrogg at gmail.com>
To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." <legal-talk at openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2010 8:24 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [DRAFT] Contributor Terms 1.2


>
> Hi,
>
> On 18 November 2010 11:24, 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
>
> I think I have the same question about this as David Groom:

Yes , you do.
>
> The OSMF tells me that I'm allowed to contribute data owned by
> somebody else which is compatible with the license currently used, but
> I acknowledge that they may change the license later.  But, is it
> "legal" for me to contribute that data, knowing that the OSMF may
> eventually distribute it under an incompatible license? (if they don't
> decide to immediately delete it, which they avoid to pledge to do in
> the CT)
>
> So OSMF tells me I can do something -- they don't mind, but am I not
> exposing myself to legal consequences if I do that?
>
> To better show this with some worst case scenario, imagine I upload
> data I'm given by a 3rd party under a license compatible with The
> Current License, the OSMF then at some point changes its license to
> one that is incompatible and for a short period keeps redistributing
> my data under it.  During this time someone downloads it and is
> granted that new license and excercises the rights he is granted.  The
> 3rd party author of the data decides that he has suffered some sort of
> damage and seeks the person responsible for the damage to repair it.
> Me as a contributor will be the responsible party.
>
> Let's say this does not happen, but by agreeing to the CT and
> contributing that data, I'm allowing such a scenario to happen with a
> very small probability.  Is this by itself not a violation of the
> third party's license?
>

Sadly, my question from six days ago, and your repeat of the question 
yesterday, remains unanswered.

David