On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 11:40 PM, andrzej zaborowski <balr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On 20 August 2010 10:51, Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> wrote: >> But mappers are not employed by OSMF, so we need some sort of >> contract that says "I, the mapper, allow OSMF to make a database from my >> data and publish it". > > This is probably all that the CTs should say, I know that the > translation into legalese can blow it to an entire page of text but > the current version definitely sneaks in some more statements. > > In fact if there was no explicit document called CT (and just a > checkbox saying "I contribute to an ODbL database"), I think you could > argue that the implied contributor terms were nearly the same. > > Fortunately the CTs rolled out in May should not pose problems with > changing to a better version. > > Cheers
That's a good point. If that is what OSMF need, then that is what the CT should say. But I suppose this leads to ambiguity of what license it is published under, so why can't the copyright license of the bits of data that users upload be set independently of the database rights that exist in some jurisdictions. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
