[OSM-legal-talk] Compliance timeline

[Ed Avis]

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 
>CC-BY-SA 4.

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>