[OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begin

[Matt Williams]

On 12 August 2010 11:58, Markus <markus_g at bigpond.com> wrote:
> On 12 August 2010 11:18, Peteris Krisjanis <pecisk at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What can I do I agree to relicense my stuff under ODbL, but I can't
>
>> agree with CT Section 3? I hoped LWG will think about removing it, but
>
>> it seems that relicensing is already started without investigating
>
>> complain about section 3.
>
>
>
> I assume you're worried about the the potential license
>
> incompatibility caused _if_ the OSMF (along with a 2/3 majority of
>
> contributors) decided to change the license to a non-SA license when
>
> your data (perhaps from imports) has an SA requirement? If so then I
>
> guess that it simply means that since there is an incompatibility then
>
> the non-SA license cannot be used (i.e. it _can't/won't_ be voted in)
>
> or the incompatible data will be removed.
>
>
>
> No-one is going to violate any licenses (if that's what the supplies
>
> of the imported data are worried about) since legally we _can't_. That
>
> clause is simply there so that we have flexibility in the future to
>
> re-license without so much of a hoo-ha as this time :)
>
>
>
>
>
> Why couldn’t this be added to CT Section 3 saying.
>
> If the OSMF does decide to change the licence, any existing data that may
> then not be compatible will need to be removed.

Perhaps you're right. However, I would recommend that if you have any
suggestions of improvements to the CTs then you bring them up on
legal-talk at osm.org or contact the LWG (whichever is best for them).

-- 
Matt Williams
http://milliams.com