[OSM-talk] Transition to CC-4 instead of destroying data

Ed Avis eda at waniasset.com
Mon Dec 19 12:21:49 GMT 2011


Simon Poole <simon <at> poole.ch> writes:

>The "upgrade clause" in 4.b of CC-by-SA 2.0
>
>a) only applies to a Derivative Work. While this is only a small hurdle 
>to surmount, it does mean that it doesn't apply to a one-to-one copy of 
>the work
>
>b) is a right granted to the the licensee. If we assume the popular 
>"every mapper has IPR in his contribution and licenses that to the OSMF" 
>pre-CT construction is correct, this implies that while the OSMF could 
>distribute the database under a later licence, the relationship between 
>mapper and OSMF would still be stuck with CC-by-SA 2.0 with all the 
>related issues.

Are there any problems with CC-BY-SA 2.0 relating specifically to the
contribution of content by individual mappers to the OSMF servers?
Are you worried that individual mappers have not transferred their sui
generis database rights, or something else?

Other collaborative projects such as Wikipedia must face the same issues.
It's hard to believe they need to get every contributor's permission in order
to do a licence upgrade.  (Indeed the Wikipedia transition from GFDL to
GFDL-or-CC was done using an upgrade clause in the former licence.)

-- 
Ed Avis <eda at waniasset.com>




More information about the talk mailing list