[OSM-legal-talk] Compliance timeline

Ed Avis eda at waniasset.com
Fri Apr 8 16:05:21 BST 2011


Frederik Ramm <frederik at ...> writes:

>Also, Ed, I think that your wording "transfer rights to the OSMF" wrong 
>because under the new scheme rights are not transferred, just granted. 

Eugene Alvin Villar also pointed this out; I should have written
'grant rights to the OSMF'.

>One of the major advantages of this is that OSMF is then the publisher 
>of the database and thereby OSMF (and in extension, the community) is in 
>a position to authoritatively interpret the license answer questions 
>like "can I do X", something that we cannot do today.

To me that doesn't sound like a wholly good thing.  But in any case, the licence
text matters more than answers to FAQs.  The OSMF might be able to grant extra
permissions, or to clarify the meaning of the licence in more liberal terms,
although I'd suggest this should require a contributor vote, since it is
effectively changing the licensing terms of the project.

>I.e. even if we were planning to switch to CC-BY-SA 4, the Contributor 
>Terms would still make a lot of sense.

Well, in that particular case, the automatic forward compatibility of CC-BY-SA
would take care of it.

-- 
Ed Avis <eda at waniasset.com>




More information about the legal-talk mailing list