At 09:03 AM 5/10/2010, Jukka Rahkonen wrote: >Ed Avis <e...@...> writes: > >> Perhaps there should be a meta-contributor-terms where you agree to >> accept future >> contributor terms proposed by the OSMF. Then there wouldn't be the need to >> re-ask everybody each time the contributor terms change. > >Insurance companies would love this idea :) However, I consider that by >accepting Contributor Terms the mapper makes a binding contract with >OSMF and that can be changed only if both OSMF and mapper accept it. >License can be changed later because that possibility is written in CT >but not CTs. > >Now we have perhaps 20 or 30 thousand contracts with CT 1.0 but apparently in >the future contibutors will be asked to accept CT 1.1. What is the plan with >those CT 1.0 mappers? Will they just continue to contribute under CT 1.0 or >will they be asked to accept CT 1.1 before they can continue? For me the >changes between 1.0 and 1.1 look negligible but perhaps having both CT 1.0 >and CT 1.1 users could make things even more garbled.
At the moment I do not see any need to force CT1.0 contributors to accept a CT1.1, they can just continue under 1.0. However, any user should have the voluntary option to do so if they wish. I completely agree with your first paragraph point. It is extremely important for contributors to lock in the OSMF. This is the anti-hijack mechanism. Even if a future OSMF were able to get new contributors to accept some different kind of terms, the OSMF would still be obligated to a large mass of existing contributors, who would control the bulk of the data, to release only under a free and open license. Mike LWG _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
