On 17 November 2010 13:30, David Groom <revi...@pacific-rim.net> wrote: > > > If there is no guarantee that data which has been contributed under one > licence will not be removed if it is incompatible with any future licence > chosen, then it will restrict what data can be added, and who will be able > to agree to the CT's. >
That's a misunderstanding of the draft. A contributor may contribute any data that is presently compatible (as far as they can see). OSMF aren't obliged to deal with the situation if, later, that data is not then compatible, but that doesn't either affect the contrbutor or cause the contributor any difficulty. Its not their faulr if OSMF misuse data at a later stage. > I would prefer to see CT's such as > > "(b) If we suspect that any contributed data is incompatible [(in the sense > that we could not continue to lawfully distribute it)] with whichever > licence or licences we are then using (see sections 3 and 4), then we will > delete that data temporarily or permanently. Is exactly what you don't want because its a *promise* by OSMF to do something if there is a suspicion. I doubt you'd want to tie OSMF's hands in that way. They might want to take legal advice, or approach the rights holder or do something else, perhaps even challenge the rights holder over it (as wikipedia has done with the national portrait gallery). The draft at the moment permits OSMF to do something but doesn't require them to. -- Francis Davey _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
