[OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Contact And Remap Campaign

[Simon Poole]

Am 13.02.2012 12:33, schrieb Frederik Ramm:
>
> This can be read - as Simon seems to do it - to mean "the CTs 
> guarantee that required attribution will survive any future licence 
> changes", but I think he's on thin ice there; in my reading, the CTs 
> promise that OSMF will provide attribution, not that OSMF will only 
> ever release your data under licenses that guarantee attribution down 
> the line.
My statement should naturally be read in the context of the statement 
below: if we distribute your data, the attribution via website (and 
further schemes that are being developed) will remain intact.
>
> But Simon is right when he says "data with such requirements would 
> have to be removed". This means that if we ever wanted to go PD, then 
> we'd have to find out which data has some kind of attribution 
> requirement attached, and remove that data before we go PD. Since we 
> don't require such data to be identified at the moment, that would be 
> one hell of a job.
>

> In my eyes, this is a very sad development that undermines any future 
> license change, even one to a non-PD license. Earlier versions of the 
> CT basically required you to *only* contribute data of which you could 
> surely say that it could be relicensed freely under the provisions of 
> "free and open" and "2/3 of mappers agree". This as been whittled down 
> to "you can contribute anything that is compatible with the current 
> license and you don't even have to *tell* us what further restrictions 
> it is under". Any future license change has therefore become very 
> unlikely - except maybe a switch back to a CC license -, and not much 
> remains of the license change provision in the CTs.

While I've expressed my displeasure with every revision of the CTs after 
1.0 for exactly your reasoning, I don't believe that the situation is 
quite as bad as you paint it. Come April the 1st the only extra "string 
attached" to data that is in the database should be attribution via the 
Website. Which implies that further data removal would only be necessary 
if we wanted to use a distribution license that didn't require any 
attribution at all, which is extremely unlikely (not the least because 
of the necessary data removal).

Simon

PS:    Andrzej will naturally point to the Polish situation, and I will 
point back saying: please supply a list of the relevant changesets of 
CC-by-2.0 data that were erroneously declared good (by way of excepting 
the CTs).