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

[Robert Whittaker (OSM)]

Francis Davey <fjmd1a at gmail.com> wrote:
> My suggestion - which I believe has been/is being chewed over by the
> LWG - is that the CT's make an alternative arrangement for
> contributors who want to contribute material that is licensed under
> some other licence.
>
> The way in which clause 2 works gives maximum flexibility to OSMF but
> it will often not be compatible with open licenses that are in common
> use - as you point out. Clause 2 is great for contributor generated
> data, but less apt for data owned by governments licensed under CC.
>
> As a general rule, saying what you mean in a contract is always a good
> idea. If the plan is that contributors are intended to be able to
> contribute CC material, then it might not be a bad thing for the CTs
> to say so.
>
> One way to do this is to give a short + long list in the CT: i.e.
> state that in the alternative to clause 2, the data is licensed under
> CC or under one of a list of licenses published by OSMF (which can
> then be updated over time at need, for example to deal with OS's
> licenses). That way, OSMF can decide what licenses it can accept, and
> contributors don't have to worry too much. If they are concerned they
> just check the list and email someone to ask for a new licence to be
> added if need be.

+1

OSM mappers shouldn't have the responsibility of making legal
decisions as to what licenses are and aren't compatible with any
Contributor Terms. Moreover, they shouldn't be asked to rely on any
non-normative advice (eg from OSMF) as to which licenses are
compatible. A list of compatible licenses (or an inbuilt mechanism for
OSMF to provide such a list) should be built in to the CTs as Francis
suggests.

This way it would be simple for contributors to see if a particular
data-set comes with a compatible license. Otherwise there's a risk to
the contributor in including contributions based on it in good faith
only to find out later they were mistaken or misled into believing
that it was ok to add. Since they are the ones who signed the
contributor agreement, they would be responsible for what they added,
even if they were following what they thought was official / expert
advice from experienced mappers. We shouldn't be putting contributors
in this position.

-- 
Robert Whittaker