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

[Simon Poole]

Am 13.02.2012 17:44, schrieb andrzej zaborowski:
>
> (I assume you mean CC-By-SA)
>
> Simon, I would like to know what your interpretation of the current
> Contributor Terms version is, I know what LWG's interpretation is from
> their meeting minutes and it must be different from your
> interpretation.  If by "declared good" you mean declared
> ODbL-compatible then there's nothing special in Poland because nothing
> has been declared good.  The acceptance of CT, according to LWG (and
> to my reading of CT 1.2.4) is not such a declaration, it is orthogonal
> to ODbL compatibility.  There's no basis for anyone to assume such a
> thing, worldwide not only in Poland.
I believe there is some contention as to what in 1.a "current licence 
terms" refers to, but it is at least consistent with the document to 
assume that it refers to the licences listed in 3., so both CC-by-SA 2.0 
and ODbL + DbCL1.0 , implying that any imports have to be compatible 
with both*. I can't put my finger on an formal statement by the LWG that 
would indicate otherwise, can you?


>
> Secondly as you know CC-By-SA licensed data has been contributed by
> CT-accepters outside of Poland too and I wouldn't be surprised if it's
> being contributed today taking advantage of the "current license"
> still being the CC one.  It is not only through (what we call)
> imports.

How can it be other than an "import", either a derivative or original 
work covered by CC-by-SA 2.0?


>
> Even if it were through imports only, then I can't make out what you
> mean by "erroneously".  First of all the imports in Poland have been
> documented in the imports catalogue on the wiki, so this was in
> keeping with the community guidelines as well as the CT.  This is not
> true of the hundreds of local, smaller imports that are happening
> every day (see the imported streets in Lima, or see the Santa Rosa
> town in the El Oro canton of Ecuador and the nearby towns, and tell me
> what their original license was) especially in non-English-speaking
> countries, where the Contributor Terms is the only "binding" document.
>   The community guidelines are really guidelines of the part of the
> community contributing to the talk@ list and the English wiki, a tip
> of an iceberg.

Naturally due to the nature of the project the amount of control that 
can be exerted over what is actually included in the database is 
limited, but that has absolutely nothing specific to do the the OdBL or 
the CC-by-SA 2.0 (it applies just as much to people importing stuff from 
commercial data sources which are compatible with neither etc.).


And yes I would be all for a zero tolerance stance and a tight regime on 
imports, but alas that is somewhat at odds with the touchy-feely nature 
of the project.

Simon