[OSM-legal-talk] Compliance timeline

Simon Poole simon at poole.ch
Fri Apr 8 18:35:43 BST 2011


Am 08.04.2011 19:10, schrieb Ed Avis:
> Simon Poole<simon at ...>  writes:
>
>> The OSMF has a binding contract with a large number of mappers,
>> representing a substantial part (actually the majority) of the OSM data, that
>> specifies CC-by-SA 2.0, ODbL 1.0 and DbCL 1.0 or a vote on a new license.
>> As I understand it, the automatic upgrade clause in CC-by-SA 2.0 would only be
>> effective for a licensee (that received the data under 2.0) that wants to
>> distribute the data under a higher version.
> Interesting.  So in your view the newer CTs restrict the OSMF in certain ways
> that wouldn't be the case if mappers simply licensed their data to the OSMF under
> CC-BY-SA 2.0.  I suppose that by the same logic the automatic upgrade provision
> in ODbL 1.0 is also nullified.

IMHO mappers licensing their data to the OSMF under CC-by-SA is not a 
useful concept, nor was it ever.  And if it is just because the license 
simply can't apply to the majority of contributions.

But I digress. Since in the arrangement between the mappers and the OSMF 
specific versions of the licenses are listed, it is clear that these 
cannot be changed without a vote. BTW a very good thing.

In any case as I pointed out before, the upgrade clauses allow 
recipients of the data to use a higher version of the license when 
-they- distribute the licensed object, they cannot affect the internal 
arrangements between the mappers and the OSMF.

> If the CTs specify CC-BY-SA 'and' ODbL 'and' DbCL, does that mean the OSMF is
> free to distribute under any of those it chooses, or must it be all three?
> (according to your reading of the proposed CTs)
>
It's two licenses, not three. The way I read it, parallel dual licensing 
would be possible.

But again IANAL.

Simon



More information about the legal-talk mailing list