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

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Tobias Knerr wrote:
> Non-relicenseable data should at most be an /exception/. In a situation
> where using a certain source would be extremely beneficial to OSM, and
> where we would only need to contact a single entity in the case of a
> future license change, I understand that we might want to accept that
> contributors use that source for making edits in OSM.
> 
> But this should not be a choice a single contributor can make. It would
> need to be decided through some defined process on a case-by-case basis.

I agree with Tobias that this *should* be the so.

Data that is not fully relicensable, i.e. comes with strings attached, 
will always be second-class data in OSM because it carries with it the 
potential to cause problems. At the very least it would have to be 
flagged as such. Giving everyone the opportunity to add such 
second-class data at will (and risking that others who would normally 
contribute first-class data build on second-class data and thus produce 
something of lesser use to the project) seems a bad choice to me - 
worse, actually, than doing our best to explain to everybody why we can 
only accept first-class data, and wave a sad goodbye to those who won't 
play.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"