On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Grant Slater <openstreet...@firefishy.com>wrote:
> On 24 September 2010 12:10, David Dean <dd...@ieee.org> wrote: > > Grant, > > > > On 24 September 2010 20:21, Grant Slater <openstreet...@firefishy.com> > wrote: > >> Ordnance Survey's OpenData license specifically allows sub-licensing, > >> restricted by the need for attribution. There isn't a conflict with > >> the 'free and open licence' when section 4 (attribution) is taken into > >> account. > > > > Section 4 only ensures that OSM provide attribution, not that the end > > user of the OpenData data in OSM has to. > > > > For example, hypothetically a 2/3 majority of OSMers could vote for > > CC0 under the CTs, but this would not be compatible for OpenData as > > the end-user publishers of the CC0 OSM data would not be obliged to > > attribute either OSM or OpenData. > > > > Yes, in this hypothetical future scenario we would no longer be > compatible (in my view) with the OpenData License. I simply don't see > the OSMF + Community putting such a scenario forward without them > first sorting out the issue. > > This is not just about what OSMF might or might not do in the future. The contributor terms are asking people to agree to something that they cannot. I cannot grant you rights that I do not have. I do not have the right to "do any act restricted by copyright" so I can't give it to you even if I wanted to. I'm beginning to think that many people, including members of the LWG it seems, do not comprehend this point. There's certainly no guidance on this when the CTs are proffered. There must be quite a number of people who have signed up to the CTs erroneously already. 80n
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
