[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