[Talk-GB] OS OpenData and accepting the new contributor terms

[Steve Coast]

You keep mentioning the OSMF when I think you really mean the LWG.

On 6/17/2011 9:44 AM, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
> On 17 June 2011 14:19, Richard Mann<richard.mann.westoxford at gmail.com>  wrote:
>> If OSMF were to claim that the CTs "prove" that all its data is
>> relicensable to anything that's "free and open" then they're daft. In
>> practice it's relicensable to something that's a bit narrower than
>> that, and which would almost certainly comply with the spirit of the
>> OS license, if not the (similarly impractical) letter.
>>
>> It's grey, it's going to stay grey. If you want white, try elsewhere.
> Why does it have to stay grey? If OSMF is happy to allow OS OpenData
> to be kept in OSM, then they could simply amend the contributor terms
> to explicitly allow it.* Then everything would be clear, and those
> who've used OS OpenData could sign the CTs with a clear conscience. If
> people have been signing anyway, this won't allow any additional
> 'tainting' of the OSM database beyond what there already is, but it
> would save a lot of discussion time and the risk of losing valuable
> contributions and contributors.
>
> Robert.
>
> * In fact I've previously argued that the CTs would be far better if
> they were based on a list of explicitly allowable licenses / sources,
> rather than requiring individual mappers to make legal decisions on
> license compatibility. This would be clearer for everyone, has more
> chance of people understanding what they can and can't use, and so has
> more chance of keeping 'undesirable' data (whatever that might be)
> from getting in to the OSM database. OSMF would then have a much
> better idea of where they stood in relation to any future license
> change. I've yet to hear an explanation of why this approach wasn't
> adopted.
>