[OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

[80n]

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Rob Myers <rob at robmyers.org> wrote:

> On 09/24/2010 02:06 PM, 80n wrote:
>
>>
>>  From OS I have a "a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, non-exclusive"
>> licence.  But for the CTs I need a "worldwide, royalty-free,
>> non-exclusive, perpetual, *irrevocable*" license.
>>
>
> There's no revocation or termination language in the OS licence, so I
> assume you have such a licence, *but* my knowledge of how the law works runs
> out at this point so I don't know for sure.


Mine too, but usually words like that are there (or absent) for a reason.


>
>
>  I don't have the right to grant an irrevocable license.
>>
>> For CC-BY-SA I have to grant a "worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive,
>> perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright) license" which
>> is revokable and term limited.  The OS OpenData license permits me to do
>> that.  And what's more they explicitly state that the license is
>> intended to be compatible with CC-BY-SA 3.0.
>>
>
> BY-SA isn't revokable. You can stop offering the work under BY-SA, but
> anyone who has already received it is free to continue to use it under BY-SA
> and to continue to offer it themselves. You cannot revoke their licence.
>

Section 7 of CC-BY-SA 2.0 says "This License and the rights granted
hereunder will terminate automatically upon any breach by You of the terms
of this License".

In other words, if I breach the license terms, for example by publishing
without attribution, then the license is automatically revoked.

If OSMF breaches the contributor terms then anything I've given them
necessarily needs to be revoked.  The language to do that in the CTs is just
plain missing.


>
> It's also not term limited, unless I've misunderstood something. Any
> copyright licence lasts at most for the duration of the copyright. Again
> it's an assumption on my part but I'd think copyright licences default to
> this.
>
> (I'm now wondering if the OS licence is BY (and BY-SA) 2.0 compatible, as
> 2.0 lacks the non-endorsement language that the OS licence insists on... ;-)
> )


Indeed.  I'd expect the OS to do better than this given the preponderance of
lawyers they employ.  However they have clearly indicated their intent to be
compatible with CC-BY-SA so that's something.


>
>  It then goes on to say "If You are not the copyright holder of the
>> Contents, You represent and warrant that You have explicit permission
>> from the rights holder" which is the relevant clause.  It's obviously
>> not clear enough for some people.
>>
>
> I still find it clear but I admit that it is a bit legalesey, yes.
>
>
>  I think there's plenty of evidence to suggest that most people don't
>> read them.  Here's an amusing example of such:
>> http://www.pcpitstop.com/spycheck/eula.asp
>>
>
> I *never* read EULAs. Just alternative licences. ;-)
>
> (I am not a lawyer, etc.)
>
>
> - Rob.
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20100924/c2bf2103/attachment.html>