[OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
pecisk at gmail.com
pecisk at gmail.com
Mon Dec 6 17:29:06 GMT 2010
2010/12/6 Serge Wroclawski <emacsen at gmail.com>:
> 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.
>
Serge, which part of "It isn't about license, it is about CT" you
don't understand?
License is fine. It is CT which in fact still allows OSMF to change
data license to any other "free license" (which could be strip "share
alike" and "attribution" requirements) what blocks usage. In fact,
there is NO license which allows such CT to coexist. Only PD, and
that's even not working in all countries.
I know that ODbL team talked about changing description of "free
license", but I don't see any official statements about that. I'm
afraid that PDists got their way all over again.
Cheers,
Peter.
More information about the talk
mailing list