[Osmf-talk] Blanket copyright licence in Contributor Terms
gerv at gerv.net
Tue Dec 15 02:29:34 UTC 2009
On 13/12/09 17:31, Matt Amos wrote:
> 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.
Again, this confuses me. Are you saying that the LWG has not thought
about how to deal with incoming ODbLed contributions at any level other
than as a thought experiment?
Say I have some data in a database under the ODbL. My Content Licence
for the individual data items says you have to pay me £0.01 for each
item you render on a map. I would like to contribute it to OSM. Is the
1) such a licence is illegal or unenforceable in all world jurisdictions
2) such a licence is acceptable for an OSM contribution
3) such a licence is unacceptable for an OSM contribution (why?)
4) blimey, we never thought about the rather basic question of the
licensing of contributed data items - help!
>> 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,
That's too vague to be a reason.
> or an even better license comes along
> which isn't ODbL,
Then we can do what we are doing now, again. If people think it's
better, we'll switch. If they don't, we won't. You don't need extra
rights in the Contributor Terms to do this.
> or the law changes in a way ODbL can't deal with,
How can the law change in a way that you can't change a legal agreement
> or the nature of OSM changes.
What does _that_ mean?
I'm afraid your list of possibilities is not convincing. :-(
More information about the osmf-talk