[OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 04/15/2011 10:13 AM, David Groom wrote:
>> There's also a third kind of "tainted" that sits in the middle of these
>> two, namely data that has e.g. been released CC-BY. Such data looks
>> compatible at first, but closer inspection (see current discussion on
>> legal-talk) reveals that CC-BY explicitly forbids sublicensing, and
>> sublicensing is what the new scheme is all about. So in that case we'd
>> have a legal outcome (data being distributed with attribution) but an
>> untidy process that took us there. I don't know if this is a minor
>> problem that can be ignored, or a showstopper.

> There's also a fourth kind of "tainted" data. Data that might be
> compatible with CC-BY-SA, and might be compatible with ODbL, but is
> incompatible with the CT's.

It would be very hard to construct something of that kind. The most 
common thing is certainly going to be the above "third" case, where you 
have the right to distribute data under CC-BY-SA or maybe even ODbL or 
maybe you even have the right to distribute it under any license with a 
BY component, but you do not have the right to authorize a third party 
(OSMF) to perform such distribution.

For data of your "fourth" kind you would have to have a data provider 
who says "you can use my data under CC-BY-SA or ODbL, and you have the 
right to sublicense not only under these licenses, but you also under 
these licenses plus the additional privilege of further sublicensing". 
I'm not aware of such a situation even existing.

> In which case the question becomes, if someone who has accepted the
> CT's, is in breach of the CT's because some data they have contributed
> in the past is incompatible with the CT's, will all their data be
> removed and their user account blocked?

The best was to deal with such situations is to identify the affected 
data and remove only that. Ideally, users should, when agreeing to the 
CT, notify OSMF of those past contributions that are not CT compatible.

The idea of accepting selected individual contributions without CT 
agreement - i.e. contributions which are "CC-BY-SA or ODbL only with 
sublicensing option" - has been floated over half a year ago, and this 
is a real possibility for cases where data loss would be too great 
otherwise. This would essentially defer data loss - the loss would not 
happen right away but at some later time if the license is changed 
again. This will always have to be a case-by-case decision by OSMF 
because it has the potential to cause trouble in the future and puts 
holes in the shiny new license regime we're hoping to have.

> Or is OSM happy to allow those people who are in breach of the CT's to
> continue to contribute to the project, in which case why bother having
> the CT's in the first place?

As I said, there might be *selected* *individual* cases where we say "oh 
well, we'll rather have your data now and accept that we have to remove 
it if we should ever change the license again, than not have your data 
at all". But just because we say so in one or two cases, doesn't mean we 
abandon the idea of a simplified later license change altogether.

Bye
Frederik