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

[Richard Fairhurst]

Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
> Clause 2 requires contributors to make a large grant of IP rights 
> to OSMF on any content added to OSM. I believe that the intent 
> here is actually that you only grant OSMF the rights necessary 
> for them to act as described in clauses 3 and 4.

Agreed.

> Lets now consider what rights are necessary for OSMF to act as
> described in clauses 3 and 4. Since the data will be initially
> distributed under CC-By-SA and ODbL, you must have sufficient 
> rights to allow the data you contribute to be distributed in this way.

Agreed.

> Since there is also the possibility of OSM content later being 
> distributed under a license that requires no downstream attribution 
> or share-alike provisions

Agreed on share-alike.

Attribution: CT 4 could (and perhaps should) be more explicitly worded; I
have more confidence that it implies a downstream requirement than that it
doesn't, so I'm happy to agree to CT 1.2.2 and make contributions from (say)
CC-BY sources, but I'm aware that others may disagree.

> [...]
> So if the license you have data under contains share-alike or 
> viral-attribution clauses then you do not have the necessary rights 
> to grant to OSMF, and therefore it cannot be contributed under the 
> terms of clause 2.

Again, agreed on share-alike.

> However, I'm not sure how clause 1 fits into this.
> [...]
> If it is meant to only cover the contributor's own IP rights in 
> the submitted contents, then I think the wording needs to be 
> clarified.

I like Francis's suggestion for such a clarification very much, and have
forwarded it to the LWG with a request that they consider it.

> But then I'd be happy that you'd be able to use OS OpenData under
> those CTs.

\o/

cheers
Richard


-- 
View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5892668.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.