[Osmf-talk] Contributor Agreement is Dual Licensing
balrogg at gmail.com
Sat Dec 12 23:10:22 UTC 2009
2009/12/12 Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org>:
> Gervase Markham wrote:
>> 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
> No. "full rights" would mean that OSMF can do what they want with the
> data. Instead, they are just asking for the right to license it using
> any "free and open license agreed to by a majority of active mappers",
> which is much more limited that "full rights".
>> You are effectively requiring the equivalent of open source code
>> copyright assignment from all contributors.
> No; see above.
>> "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
> No. If you look closely, the whole relicensing process as published
> today does not contain any element that puts the data under ODbL.
> Everyone just agrees, via the above statement, that OSMF may but the
> data under ODbL, and of course that's what they will do; but if the
> statement above would not contain the sentence about agreeing to let
> OSMF publish the data unter ODbL then there would be no legal basis for
Couldn't instead the contributors put the data under ODbL and not
grant the Foundation any additional rights? It seems like this would
solve a couple of problems and would be logically a single step rather
than the two steps the current update plan is trying to make.
Is the only concern that the ODbL may turn out Bad and a new ODbL
version isn't what the Foundation needs it to be, or are there other
More information about the osmf-talk