[OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag

[Serge Wroclawski]

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:42 AM, andrzej zaborowski <balrogg at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6 December 2010 14:55, Serge Wroclawski <emacsen at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>

> But the Contributor Terms aren't compatible.  It's not some
> theoretical issue, they are actually incompatible in that you can't
> give OSMF the rights listed in CT to something licensed CC-By-SA (yes,
> this belongs on the legal list but I wanted to correc this)

Right; this is an issue with a few people in OSM who've integrated
other datasets under a specific license, rather than either getting
the other organization to make them available under a very permissive
license, or else making the donation to OSM itself.

I don't know the specifics of Nearmap but I'm aware of this issue in general.

>>> 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".
>
> With regards to what Steve submitted so far, yes, but he should be
> able to decide the terms for his new edits.

I think that this issue is really more cut and dry. Regarding data
he's entered which is licensed by a third party, the third party needs
to make the data available to OSM in a way that works with OSM's
chosen license model, or else the data needs to be removed from OSM.

That doesn't mean Steve needs to be alone; OSM could offer resources
to assist this effort.

> Or let's discuss the terms and come up with something that satisfies
> more people.  There is a very vocal group, including you saying that
> this is now "the project's terms" in ways that try to sound
> authoritative, but 1. these terms are still in flux which you know
> about, so what are the actual terms? the 1.0 or the 1.1 or the
> upcoming 1.2?

Google, Twitter and Facebook, the three largest sites in the English
speaking Internet, all have terms which change over time, and so does
OSM. And unlike those other organizations, you have direct ability not
only to accept or not accept the terms, but also to vote for the
organization's leadership, which AFAIK, isn't an option for Google
users.

> 2. assuming that the project is the community then the
> new terms are just the terms of a part of the project and what the
> "committee" up there decides doesn't automatically become fact.

The LWG is part of the OSMF, and the OSMF is who runs this project.

- Serge