[Osmf-talk] Blanket copyright licence in Contributor Terms

Matt Amos matt at asklater.com
Mon Dec 14 01:31:03 UTC 2009

Gervase Markham wrote:
> On 13/12/09 06:28, Matt Amos wrote:
>> yes, the contributor terms means that OSM wouldn't be able to accept
>> such an ODbL contribution. imagining that we were accepting
>> contributions under the ODbL, then it would be another point of
>> difficulty that the Contents licenses would have to be compatible.
> Has the OSMF produced guidance on what sorts of Contents licences it 
> will accept?

sorry, i wasn't suggesting that was currently possible - i was just 
imagining if contributions under ODbL were possible as a thought experiment.

>> there's really two parts to share-alike: 1) you can import other
>> people's data, and 2) other people can import your data. (1) isn't true
>> of the proposed scheme. basically, it's not possible to have both the
>> ability to react in the future to the need to change the license
> That's not true. the ODbL has an upgrade clause, which allows the 
> license to be changed.

upgraded to later versions of ODbL, yes.

> Why do you need additional ability to change over and above that?

let's say the zeitgeist changes, or an even better license comes along 
which isn't ODbL, or the law changes in a way ODbL can't deal with, or 
the nature of OSM changes.

now, i'm not saying that any of those is definitely going to happen. but 
i think future uncertainty is important enough that i would rather have 
the ability to react to it than import other ODbL data.

but even with that restriction, you're still free to take OSM's ODbL 
output and use it, remix it and share it alike.



More information about the osmf-talk mailing list