[OSM-talk] How to start to remove non-CT compliant data..

[Simon Poole]

This is really the wrong list for this discussion, but as I've pointed 
out before
there are further "minor" points  that would have to be considered, for 
example
voting rights on future license changes. Obviously you could simply assume
that all PD contributors don't care, I'm just not quite sure that this 
is really the
case.

It is clearly the easier, pragmatic and sensible thing to do to simply 
accept the CTs.

Simon

Am 03.09.2011 10:38, schrieb Robert Whittaker (OSM):
> On 3 September 2011 05:03, Russ Nelson<nelson at crynwr.com>  wrote:
>> The first is a contract of adhesion: "Here's my
>> work; I renounce any copyright claims over it." The OSMF has the
>> choice of accepting that contract or rejecting it, just as it does the
>> contract formed by agreeing to the Contributor Terms. I don't
>> understand their choice of accepting the one contract but refusing the
>> other.
> But "Here's my work; I renounce any copyright claims over it." doesn't
> go as far as the contributor terms do. One would also need to add
> something along the lines of "And I'm reasonably sure that no-one else
> has any copyright claims over my contributions that would prevent OSMF
> re-distributing them under the relevant licenses."
>
> This ambiguity is presumably at least one of the reasons why LWG don't
> feel they're able to accept arbitrary PD declarations. Personally, I'd
> like to see them produce a simple boilerplate PD declaration that does
> cover everything they want it to, and then allow people to agree to
> that somehow. It would, however, need to be a wider rights grant than
> in the Contributor Terms (since those are the minimum rights that LWG
> feel they need). But from what I've read I think it could be worded so
> as to get around the objections that the PD advocates have been
> raising.
>