----- Original Message ----- From: "John Smith" <deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com>
To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." <legal-talk@openstreetmap.org> Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 9:25 AM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data [snip]
The reason for the data loss is as Frederik wrote, CC-by-SA isn't believed to be compatible with ODBL, and almost nothing except CC0 and PD data is compatible with the new contributor terms,
personally I'm still waiting for a reply to the question I asked on this list on 20 July entitled "Query over Contributor Terms".
To avoid you having to do back and look, the point I was asking is as follows:
The last line of paragraph 1 of the contributors terms states "....You have explicit permission from the rights holder to submit the Contents.....". It is the use of the word "explicit" worries me. The sentence in which that phrase is contained would still make sense if the word "explicit" were removed. Therefore I conclude that the inclusion of the word explicit is important and deliberate.
To me the phrase "explicit permission" would indicate that the rights holder would have to state something along the lines of "I give David Groom permission to incorporate my data into OpenSteetMap" .
Now John Smith in his statement above says "almost nothing except CC0 and PD data is compatible with the new contributor terms". Lets take CC0 data, there is still a rights holder of the data, who has released the data under CC0. I would contend I have an IMPLICIT permission, to use the data in OSM, I would also contend I have "permission" to use the data in OSM, what I am unsure about is that I have "EXPLICIT permission".
At the moment I remain to be convinced I have "EXPLICIT permission", no one has tried to argue otherwise, and so currently I would find myself in the position of being unable to agree something along the lines of the CT terms which new users are asked to sign up to, to cover edits I have already made.
Note that I believe the same argument could be made for PD data, as technically there is still a rights holder, who released the data into PD.
Please believe me when I say I'm not trying to be difficult, just that the inclusion of the word "explicit" in the CT obviously is deliberate, in that the sentence still works without it, so its inclusion must be there for a reason.
David _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
