[OSM-legal-talk] Can someone summarise arguments for/against clause 2 of CTs?

[Steve Bennett]

On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Rob Myers <rob at robmyers.org> wrote:
> OSM(F) needs to be able to place contributions under BY-SA now and later
> under the ODbL. In order to do so it needs to have permission to do so.
> Clause 2 gives this permission.
>
> OSM(F) may also need to relicence the data again in future, as Clause 3
> indicates. Clause 2 makes this possible.

I see. I think I was missing the effect of the "Subject to Section 3
below" bit. So effectively Clause 2 says they can do whatever they
want with the data...subject to their self-imposed limitation that
they will only license it under one of those three licences.

Hmm. Well, the more I learn about it, I guess the less I'm convinced
it's the right way to go. It demands an awful lot of trust from users
in the OSMF, and really shuts out organisations like NearMap from the
whole process. I guess I'll still be signing up, depending on what
NearMap do.

But, I started this thread to ask a question, and it's been answered,
so I won't relaunch yet another variation on "you bastards!"

Steve