[Osmf-talk] Contributor Agreement is Dual Licensing
gerv at gerv.net
Sat Dec 12 22:06:39 UTC 2009
On 12/12/09 13:14, Matt Amos wrote:
> i apologise if there's some point i'm missing, but i thought i had
> addressed the issue:
So the official position of the OSMF is that the upgrade clause in the
ODbL is not sufficient insurance against future eventualities, and that
the OSMF must acquire (joint) full rights over the data of all
contributors in order to protect against such eventualities? Is that right?
Can you give examples of such possible future major events? Sudden
worldwide changes in copyright law? The possibility that ODbL 1.0 has
holes and needs improvement is covered by the upgrade clause in the ODbL
itself. So it can't be that.
You are effectively requiring the equivalent of open source code
copyright assignment from all contributors. That's a big deal. And,
importantly, is not a _necessary_ consequence of a change to the ODbL,
yet seems to be piggy-backing along on top of it.
Here is the paragraph in question:
"OSMF agrees to use or sub-license Your Contents as part of a database
only under the terms of one of the following licenses: ODbL 1.0,
CC-BY-SA 2.0, or another free and open license; which other free and
open license is chosen by a vote of the OSMF membership and approved by
at least a majority vote of active contributors."
There is a great deal about this which is strange. If the relicensing
happens, then all contributions at the time of the relicensing by people
who have agreed to the terms will be under ODbL 1.0 and CC-BY-SA 2.0
anyway. So why does the OSMF need the ability to license them as such?
Also, "free and open" is not defined by the document. If the vote is all
that decides whether a particular licence is to be changed to, then the
correct text would be simply "another licence". After all, if they've
voted for it, it must be free and open. Or who is going to step in and
tell them their vote to relicense under a not-free-and-open licence is
invalid? And what authority will they appeal to for the definition of
"free and open"?
More information about the osmf-talk