[OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

[John Smith]

On 5 January 2011 02:22, Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemed.net> wrote:
>
> John Smith wrote:
>> That might work for ODBL which has attribution requirements, although
>> if produced works are exempt from attribution requirements
>
> They're not. ODbL 4.3 requires attribution on produced works.

So statements by some people that tiles could be supplied as PD is false then?

>> and the CT allows for license changes to non-attribution licenses
>
> It doesn't. CT 4 promises attribution and, as part of the Terms themselves
> rather than the licence, cannot be overruled by a future licence change.

That fails to address my point about being able to follow a chain back
to any attribution.