[OSM-legal-talk] Are CT contributors are in breach of the CC-BY-SA license?

Eugene Alvin Villar seav80 at gmail.com
Sun Apr 17 11:01:06 BST 2011

IANAL, but as long as the data is currently being released as
CC-BY-SA, then there is no breach of the CC license.

CC-BY-SA only stipulates that the data, when published, must be under
CC-BY-SA. It doesn't say that you cannot enter contracts promising to
release the data *in the future* under another license.

If the data will be released *in the future* under a different
license, then it's true that the CC license is breached.

But, in the case of OSM-ODbL, assuming that all the ODbL rejectors' IP
will be removed before the actual relicensing, since what remains is
the IP of all who have agreed to the CT, then it's like everyone
mutually agreed to relicense their own data under a new license, thus,
not breaching the CC license.

On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 5:39 PM, 80n <80n80n at gmail.com> wrote:
> It would seem to me that anyone who has agreed to the contributor
> terms and who then edits content that is published by OSM is in breach
> of the CC-BY-SA license.
> Currently the OSM database is published as a CC-BY-SA work.  If that
> content is downloaded from the OSM database and modified then this
> creates a derived work.
> If that derived work is loaded back to OSM then it can only be done so
> under the same license by which it was received, namely CC-BY-SA.
> That's the nature of the share alike clause in CC-BY-SA.  But anyone
> who has agreed to the contributor terms is claiming that they can
> contribute this content under a different license.
> Now I know that it is the intention of OSMF to delete any such
> content, but in fact anyone who has edit such CC-BY-SA derived works
> is already in actual breach of the license under which they *received*
> that content.
> If you have agreed to the contributor terms you are likely to be
> breaching the terms of CC-BY-SA.

More information about the legal-talk mailing list