[OSM-talk] Contact And Remap Campaign

[john whelan]

I concur the data in OSM is dubious enough without asking for trouble.

Cheerio John

On 9 February 2012 12:58, Michael Collinson <mike at ayeltd.biz> wrote:

> **
> On 07/02/2012 08:36, Graham Jones wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7 February 2012 05:34, Simone Cortesi <simone at cortesi.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>  Our default action should be: if somebody doesn't answer, then
>> relicence....
>>
>>  I completely agree - we should assume that no response is equivalent to
> consent - if they complain about this action we can delete their data when
> they show enough interest to actually decline the licence/terms.  Qui
> tacet consentire.
>
>
> There is a part of me that would love to agree, but the fact is that for
> better or worse we earlier asked them if we could publish their
> contributions under CC-BY-SA and only under CC-BY-SA.  Another
> consideration for continuing mappers is that if you weaken the rights of
> folks who have not responded, you weaken your own hold over keeping the our
> license a free and open license over the next 100 years or so while your
> personal copyright remains active. Of the two, I prefer to go remapping.
>
> As an aside, the problem of not being able to contact authors is well
> known [1] and an evolving area of law [2] [3] if you are interested.
> Wikipedia has been lobbying in the EU on the matter. Once the license
> change is over, I look forward to working with them on matters like this to
> push forward the frontiers of Open IP.
>
> Mike
>
>
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_works
> [2] http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/
> [3] http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/orphan_works_en.htm
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20120209/1d2e5b10/attachment.html>