[OSM-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment

[Kai Krueger]

Tom Hughes-3 wrote:
> 
> If you have a better way of defining "active contributor" that is 
> workable then please tell us what it is.
> 
One could have given voting rights to all people who have once reached
"active contributor" status and retain sufficient interest in the project to
keep their email address up to date and respond to the vote within 3 weeks.

This way, one would also have no need to write an automated script to move a
lone node around every month to ensure one retains voting rights.

However, Frederick is correct, that this kind of change to the CT (i.e.
definitions of who is allowed to vote and how)  is indeed very hard, as it
would be incompatible with the current CT, as it is a global change rather
than a change just effecting the local contributor. I.e. one can't do what
has been done with the upgrade from CT version 1 to 1.2.4 (i.e. different
people are on different versions of the CT), or what could be done to e.g.
clarify the meaning of the combination of clause 1 and 2 of the CT with
respect to third party rights.

What could however be done without requiring to reask everyone to update to
the latest CT, would be to include a sentence in that clause along the line
that "OSMF may only ban you from editing if there is clear indication of
vandalism to the data or if other technical missuse can be shown". Thus
political banning of people who don't agree with the OSMF will no longer be
allowed and thus couldn't affect who is eligible for voting. Then one
wouldn't need to rely on the sysadmins being "reasonable" and the sysadmins
would not be in the awkward position of having to decide if OSMF is being
reasonable or not.



--
View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Phase-4-and-what-it-means-tp6440812p6530437.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.