[OSM-legal-talk] Questions about CTs 1.2.4

David Groom reviews at pacific-rim.net
Thu Apr 14 10:21:15 BST 2011



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robert Whittaker (OSM)" <robert.whittaker+osm at gmail.com>
To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." <legal-talk at openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 8:54 AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Questions about CTs 1.2.4


>
> On 13 April 2011 23:06, Francis Davey <fjmd1a at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Clause 2 is a grant for certain rights. From previous discussion here,
>>> can I assume that I can agree if I'm not the copyright holder, and
>>> that I only grant the rights I can under the licence I received the
>>> data under?
>>
>> That depends very much on the licence, but for many licences the
>> answer will be no. For example most CC licences don't give you the
>> right to grant such a licence.
>
> If I'm reading what Francis has written correctly, this would seem to
> be a very real problem with CT 2.2.4, which would prevent us using
> almost any source which wasn't PD or for which the contributor didn't
> own the copyright. In particular, Francis is saying that we can't make
> use of CC-By or ODbL sources because of clause 2.
>
> From the caveats in clauses 3 and 4, I guess that the intention is
> that you should be able to use eg CC-by sources (although it's
> questionable whether or not downstream attribution is guaranteed under
> ODbL, and the possibility of a future license change is also
> problematic). Nevertheless, I don't even think that an agreement by
> OSMF to only use the Contents in a manner which is compatible with a
> given source license gives you the ability to make the broad rights
> grant in clause 2, unless the license specifically allows such a
> grant. (A CC-By license does not say that you can give a third-party
> the right to do "anything restricted by copyright" as long as they
> only use those rights in certain ways.)
>
> I though a previous version of the CTs (possibly 2.2.3) had an
> additional phrase in clause 2, along the lines of "to the extent which
> you are able" which I thought was designed to address this point. My
> interpretation of it was that it allowed you not to have to make the
> grant for parts of the submitted contents which were under a license
> that didn't allow it. The CTs then relied on clause 1 to ensure (as
> much as possible) that the Contents at least allowed OSMF to
> distribute them under the currently chosen license.
>
> Could someone from LWG please confirm the intention of clause 2 and
> what their legal advice is on our ability to add data from CC-By
> and/or ODbL sources under clause 2? Why was the extra phrase removed
> for this new draft?


The reason for the removal of "to the extent which  you are able" can be 
found here

https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_100cv4n9bdj    under item 5

David

> Thanks,
>
> Robert.
>
> -- 
> Robert Whittaker
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
> 







More information about the legal-talk mailing list