[Osmf-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!
balrogg at gmail.com
Mon May 28 20:43:14 UTC 2012
On 28 May 2012 22:18, Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemed.net> wrote:
> On 28/05/2012 21:02, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
>> Copying and pasting is not a copyright infringement. The Contributor
>> Terms don't require that the data inserted into the database be
>> compatible with ODbL -- only the current licensing terms, which still
>> means CC-By-SA.
> You have raised this issue 8bn times already, but as far as I can see, most
> people (by which I mean, everyone apart from you) have been remapping on the
> basis of ODbL-ready rather than "either ODbL or CC"-ready.
> If copyright infringements are brought to DWG's notice after the changeover
> occurs then I'm sure they will be happy to address them.
Not sure I understand, I'm talking about the data uploaded by users
who have accepted the Contributor Terms. The data isn't being
remapped (and err, I haven't done nearly any remapping?) because it's
considered "clean". I'm talking about the lack of effort on the part
of the future database publisher for it to be ODbL-compatible by
default, i.e. before takedown requests are received.
Would it be difficult to fix the wording in the Contributor Terms?
Not really, I think. It could be done as soon as it's been pointed
out in April 2011.
Will it fix itself if the LWG close their eyes and make all effort to
not see? Unlikely. One time that I discussed the issue of the
"compatible with the current license" phrase in the CT, you said
(sorry, no logs here) it was problematic but that you trusted the LWG
would fix it before April 1st since they had a good track record of
solving problems. Hard to objectively argue against that statement,
but now I'm sorry to note that track record hasn't persisted.
This is all apart from the fact that over 50% of the CT
v1.2.4-signatories have clicked "Accept" on an incomplete version of
the document because of a simple technical bug that was present until
More information about the osmf-talk