[OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Transition to CC-4 instead of destroying data

Jo winfixit at gmail.com
Mon Dec 19 15:21:56 GMT 2011

2011/12/19 Mike Dupont <jamesmikedupont at googlemail.com>

> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Ed Avis <eda at waniasset.com> wrote:
> > Simon Poole <simon <at> poole.ch> writes:
> >
> >>The "upgrade clause" in 4.b of CC-by-SA 2.0
> >>
> >>a) only applies to a Derivative Work. While this is only a small hurdle
> >>to surmount, it does mean that it doesn't apply to a one-to-one copy of
> >>the work
> >>
> >>b) is a right granted to the the licensee. If we assume the popular
> >>"every mapper has IPR in his contribution and licenses that to the OSMF"
> >>pre-CT construction is correct, this implies that while the OSMF could
> >>distribute the database under a later licence, the relationship between
> >>mapper and OSMF would still be stuck with CC-by-SA 2.0 with all the
> >>related issues.
> >
> > Are there any problems with CC-BY-SA 2.0 relating specifically to the
> > contribution of content by individual mappers to the OSMF servers?
> > Are you worried that individual mappers have not transferred their sui
> > generis database rights, or something else?
> >
> > Other collaborative projects such as Wikipedia must face the same issues.
> > It's hard to believe they need to get every contributor's permission in
> order
> > to do a licence upgrade.  (Indeed the Wikipedia transition from GFDL to
> > GFDL-or-CC was done using an upgrade clause in the former licence.)
> >
> Well, this is really a topic for legal talk, So I will post there.
> I dont believe the boogyman statements that are being used to motivate
> the license change.
> I dont see the need for speed in this process.

Speed? A turtle moves more quickly. This process has started many years ago
and I'm glad there is finally light visible at the end of the tunnel. Yes,
we still have a lot of work to do, but it's good to have a deadline to work

> from my point of view, There is no real reason for the re-licensing
> that convinces me, no burning need. But there has been a decision by a
> minority and they are pushing this through.
> my personal opinion is that people are trying to cash in on OSM and
> need to change the license to be more liberal to do so.

We need a license which is more suitable for the work we are creating. This
work happens to be a database, so a license which applies to a DB can't be
that much besides the mark.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20111219/327a972d/attachment.html>

More information about the legal-talk mailing list