[OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begins

Simon Biber simonbiber at yahoo.com.au
Fri Aug 13 00:33:15 BST 2010


On 13/08/2010, at 8:17, "David Groom" <reviews at pacific-rim.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
> Firstly,  as you say "sometime in the past".  So Yahoo gave permission when the project has a CC-BY-SA licence.  The contributor terms allow the switching of the licence to a non-CC-BY-SA licence.  So how can I possibly say that on the basis of an agreement made some time ago Yahoo now agree to contributors agreeing to the CT terms.

Yahoo disclaimed copyright in information that is derived from their aerial photography. So, this "permission" is not limited to any particular license.

> Secondly, the real point I was making was that the CT terms state "... You represent and warrant that You have explicit permission from the rights holder to submit the Contents and grant the license below ...".  And I simply do not have explicit permission.  I don't have explicit permission because:
> 
> a) The permission was not made to me, but to a more general body of people; so the permission I have is IMPLICIT.

That is not the correct meaning of "explicit". Explicit means "expressed", by means of a statement, whether verbally or in writing. As opposed to implicit, which means assumed in the absence of a statement.

If the rights holder makes a statement that permission is granted to "any person", then it _is_ explicit permission for you, since you are a member of the set "any person".

Explicit does not mean specific.


More information about the talk mailing list