[OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Mixing OSM and FOSM data

Andrew Harvey andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com
Thu Jan 19 09:53:09 GMT 2012

On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 1:07 PM, andrzej zaborowski <balrogg at gmail.com> wrote:
> Giżycko is one example, http://osm.org/go/0Pp7zn7~-- . As FK28..
> pointed out the major such cases are where mappers who imported
> ODbL-incompatible data accepted the Contributor Terms or CT-accepters
> import ODbL-incompatible data.  With version 1.2.4 requiring
> compatibility with only the current licensing terms, an account's
> CT-acceptance and ODbL-compatibility are independent variables and
> this leads to a lot of misunderstandings.  (This should be fixed if
> the database rebuild should use CT-acceptance as input, but the longer
> it takes to notice the problem the more costly the fix is going to be)

Yep and I used this logic (which is confirmed by
even though I didn't know it at the time) when I agreed to the CTs as
I stated http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/aharvey/diary/14416

On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
> Ah yes. This really is a problem, and it certainly was a very bad decision
> to make that change to the CT.
> The issue has been discussed here
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2011-April/005915.html
> and elsewhere on this list.
> We can only hope that most people "misunderstand" this whole thing and in
> their minds treat "agreeing to CT" and "agreeing to ODbL" the same. A strict
> reading of the current CT leads to the conclusion that while we can re-build
> the database to only contain data by CT agreers in April, we cannot release
> the result under ODbL because we do not even *know* which contributions are
> ODbL compatible and which aren't. I hope that LWG have some clever plan on
> how to deal with this. Otherwise they would not have made that change when
> they released 1.2.4, right ;-)?

Spot on. Thanks for highlighting this issue.

There was a lot of noise made by some in the community trying to get
mappers to accept the CTs, so even though I've uploaded some content
CC-BY by another party which I have no right to relicense, I agreed to
the CTs anyway with the logic andrzej pointed out.

I would be happy to try to track down the source tags I used for this
data for the LWG, but I'm not going to waste my time doing it if I
don't feel the LWG will take it seriously when trying to clean the DB
of non-ODBL content.

More information about the legal-talk mailing list