[OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag

[Serge Wroclawski]

This should really be taking place on the legal list but nonetheless:

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>  So, this is awkward. According to my profile, I've "agreed to the
> new Contributor Terms". I have no recollection of having done so, and
> obviously I don't want to agree to them while they're incompatible
> with Nearmap.

If Nearmap is CC-BY-SA, they're compatible now.

> Sadly, the GUI doesn't tell me when this flag was set,
> nor does it provide a way to unset it. (I could also complain about
> the fact that there are no indications anywhere else that you're
> operating in a totally different licensing mode, but I'll leave it.)

You're not "operating in a totally difference licensing mode", the
work is licensed under CC-BY-SA until the switchover.

> So:
> 1) Could someone please unset this flag for me: (User: stevage)

Unsetting the flag has repercussions to the organization which I think
you should be aware of.

The CT isn't a license, it's a terms of agreement. That means you've
given OSMF a license to the data, and now you're asking them to revoke
that license.

This would be (moral if not legal) equivalent of someone offering up a
program under the GPL and then saying "Nope, I want it proprietary".

Going forward, of course, you can choose your own terms, but you can't
retroactively revoke the license, because that's spelled out
explicitly in the license itself.

My suggestion to you personally, if you don't like the project's
terms, then you should stop submitting data to it immediately.

> 2) Could someone please tell me when it got set?
>
> And for bonus points:
> 3) Could someone provide evidence that I did indeed set it? I think
> the most likely explanation is that I did (I do recall visiting the
> page on several occasions to read the terms, maybe I had a brainfart),
> but I'm curious whether there is any kind of signature equivalent that
> would hold up in court. A single bit in a database is not very
> compelling.

Assuming this question was asked in good faith, then I can tell you
for sure that agreement to a license via a click is indeed valid. If
it weren't, then every time you agree to any web site or software's
terms of service via a single checkbox, then that would be invalid. I
notice you're using a Google email address- I'm sure you had to click
some terms at some point- same thing.

In this case, OSM knows you were authenticated, where you were
authenticated from, and when you clicked the button and submitted the
form.

> Failing all that, I guess I create a new user account?

Sure, you could, but all new accounts require accepting the CT before
you can begin.

> From a pragmatic legal perspective, it seems to me that any
> nearmap-sourced edits that I made while under the effects of the CT
> are totally invalid anyway, so should be moved to a non-CT account.

I don't know anything about Nearmap, buf the data in OSM as of today
is available under the CC-BY-SA license, and your usage is bound to
that.

> Or, to save a lot of bother: just unset the flag.

I'm not on the OSMF board, but if I were, I'd say that the dangers of
revoking a license are so high that I'd be extremely hesitant to do
so. On the other hand, someone who might have a beef with OSM  and
doesn't want to accept the CT might set up such a situation to put
them in an impossible situation.

In other words, Steve, I think it was your talk I went to at SoTM,
regarding rendering. If it was, you seem like a nice guy. Please don't
make more trouble for OSM- if you don't like the CT, then just stop
contributing.

- Serge