[OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begins

David Groom reviews at pacific-rim.net
Fri Aug 13 02:13:03 BST 2010


> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Simon Biber" <simonbiber at yahoo.com.au>
> To: "David Groom" <reviews at pacific-rim.net>
> Cc: <talk at openstreetmap.org>
> Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 12:33 AM
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begins
>
>
>
> 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.

>From http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Yahoo

"The agreement allows us to derive our vector-based map data from the aerial 
photos owned by Yahoo! and to release these derived works with our open 
content license " - and that licence is currently CC-BY-SA.

and from later in that page  "We don't have a written agreement explaining 
exactly what is permitted. It seems to be more a case of agreeing an 
interpretation of their Terms of Use. "

So if there is some documentation which shows that Yahoo agrees to users 
tracing data which is subject to the CT terms then please could someone put 
a reference to it on the wiki, this would be quite helpful in allevaiting 
some of my concerns


>
>> 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",

Not just "expressed", but "precisely and clearly expressed"  [1]


> 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.
>
>

139 Moby Thesaurus words for "explicit": .....specific .....[2]


David

[1] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=explicit
[2] http://www.dictionary.net/explicit 







More information about the talk mailing list