On 15 November 2010 22:47, Steve Bennett <stevag...@gmail.com> wrote: > > It seems there is an assumption by the authors of the CTs that, as the > contributor of data: > 1) you own the copyright to that data; and therefore > 2) you can, and are willing to, grant an extremely wide licence to OSMF >
I'm not on the LWG, but I believe that this is all being considered. Certainly these concerns have been raised before and I am sure they are well aware of the difficulties. I doubt they are making the assumption you suggest. > However, this assumption is incorrect in at least these two cases: > 1) You don't own the data, but it is licensed CC-BY-SA (or similar), > and therefore it would be compatible with OSM. > 2) You own the data, but are prevented for other reasons (such as > NearMap's community licence) from granting the extremely wide licence > OSMF requires. > Clearly if there was that assumption then it would be wrong. > The bottom line is this: the CTs make open licences an insufficient > condition for inclusion of content into OSM. > They do at present - I think this is a well understood question. I have certainly read statements by people who suggest this is desirable (that is excluding licensed data sets is a positive outcome). The current working draft license terms suggest this is not the view taken by its drafters and they do not intend it to be the outcome: https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_933xs7nvfb > I'm sad to hear that progress on the CTs has stalled - these versions It doesn't look "stalled" to me: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes There is progress. > seem horribly flawed. Or, if my above conclusions are correct, and > intentional, there should be a big public statement explaining this > change in policy. Not simply "We are making changes to allow a future > change in licensing, and this is a little administrative matter", but > "We have decided to no longer accept open source content. All > submitted content must be either fully owned by the contributor, with > no restrictions, or submitted with the explicit permission of the > copyright owner." > As you will see from reading the minutes, that doesn't seem to be the case. -- Francis Davey _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
