[OSM-legal-talk] Compliance timeline

Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org
Fri Apr 8 16:41:10 BST 2011


On 04/08/2011 05:05 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
>> 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.

I was trying to say that even if we had that forward compatibility, we 
would still be better off with proper contributor terms.

For example, we have this situation now where we say "if you make a web 
application and display your layer in a separatable fashion over an OSM 
layer, this is not a derived work, but a collective work". Most of us 
agree that this is how we want to handle it, but there is nothing 
written in the license that says so, and even if all but one contributor 
agree on this, that one contributor could sue whoever does what I 
described for breach of license.

The contributor terms create a situation where OSMF can actually make a 
reliable statement expressing the community interpretation of certain 
points of the license, rather than the current "well most people say 
this is so but of course we cannot guarantee anything".

This is a good thing because it removes obstacles to using OSM data, and 
should be pursued in any case, even if we chose to ultimately wait for 
CC-BY-SA 4. Of course introducing contributor terms would always mean we 
have to go through the process we're currently going through, so the 
automatic forward compatibility of CC-BY-SA wouldn't help us in terms of 
having to ask everybody, risk data loss, and so on.


More information about the legal-talk mailing list