[OSM-legal-talk] Compliance timeline
eda at waniasset.com
Fri Apr 8 17:07:51 BST 2011
Frederik Ramm <frederik at ...> writes:
>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".
>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".
Yes - if this interpretation is the more liberal one. OSMF would not be in a
position to state that putting a layer on top *does* make a derived work, if the
licence text and copyright case law said otherwise. Well, they could state it,
but would have to go to court to see if they were correct.
>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
It's unfortunate that the proposed contributor terms and the proposed new licence
have been bundled into one all-or-nothing process. It would make more sense to
first get agreement on granting extra rights to the OSMF, and if that's accepted
by the community, then go through the 2/3 vote process for any licence change.
Ed Avis <eda at waniasset.com>
More information about the legal-talk