[OSM-talk] OSM France "BANO" project... openaddresses in France

[Jean-Marc Liotier]

On 16/05/2014 12:03, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> 2014-05-16 11:42 GMT+02:00 Jean-Marc Liotier <jm at liotier.org 
> <mailto:jm at liotier.org>>:
>
>     As it stands now, there is nothing that prevents anyone from
>     contributing ODbL-licensed data into an ODbL-licensed database. 
>
>
> I agree with Peter here, there is something that can make you think 
> twice about importing ODbL licensed data: the CTs. You not only have 
> to comply to ODbL, but also to the CTs. 
> http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms/FR
>
> 3. OSMF agrees that it may only use or sub-license Your Contents as 
> part of a database and only under the terms of one or more of the 
> following licences: ODbL 1.0 for the database and DbCL 1.0 for the 
> individual contents of the database; CC-BY-SA 2.0; or such other free 
> and open licence (for example, http://www.opendefinition.org/okd/) as 
> may from time to time be chosen by a vote of the OSMF membership and 
> approved by at least a 2/3 majority vote of active contributors.

Section 3. of the contributor terms demand agreement to the re-licensing 
process. The fact that one agrees about the re-licensing process does 
not imply that the terms of the hypothetical future license borne from 
that re-licensing process currently apply.

If the OSMF triggers triggers the re-licensing process, then a whole new 
can of worms will be opened and we shall have a fun discussion about its 
contents and how to get it approved by a 2/3 majority of active 
contributors. For now however, that container of invertebrates is not in 
our inventory and we operate within the scope of the ODbL.

While of course the contributor terms are governed by English law, I 
would like to cite Article 2 of the French Code Civil: "Legislation 
provides only for the future; it has no retrospective operation". It was 
written since 1803 and still applies today. Maybe as a French citizen I 
am suffering from cultural bias in seeing that principle as important, 
but I suspect that something like that exists in English law because 
even the English don't really wants to be ruled by laws that don't exist 
yet.

Even if a future license puts the whole Openstreetmap world upside down 
in a perfectly legal manner, it does not apply to us today. We have no 
obligation to comply to rules that do not exist.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20140516/61f50f69/attachment.html>