On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 09:30:20PM -0500, Richard Weait wrote: > who criticize CT v1.0. What do you think of the current draft of the > contributor terms? Is this an improvement? What aspects address your > concerns regarding previous versions? What aspects could be further > improved and how?
1.(a). I think the “should”s should be “must [to your knowledge]”s. The “You do not need to guarantee […]” is still applicable. 2. Rights grant is still too broad. Even ignoring the grants to the OSMF the “and any party that receives Your Contents” leaves it wide open to just about anyone, or at least ambiguous. 3. “free and open” is not explicitly defined, could mean something quite different to the ODbL+DbCL. I would prefer to either explicitly list licences (I have no other suggestions for geodata than ODbL + (DbCL or stronger)), or not have this clause at all. The upgrade clauses in the chosen licences should be sufficient. The period for determining an active contributor is too short, and the contribution amount too large. Copyright and database right apply for defined periods, much longer, and while I believe that these should be shortened, I don’t think it is the place of the licence or contributor terms to do this. If it bothers you so much, please help to get ’right laws changed for the better (I will support such efforts). At the very least, I expect to allow for seasonal mapping, plus some leeway, and no necessity for contributing in multiple months (this is a bit useless anyway as anyone determined to keep their chance to “vote” can just spread out their edits, and so update the data more slowly (how many people would do this is untested)). Previously, I suggested any three months in an 18 month period. I now feel an active contributor should be anybody who has contributed in the previous 18 months (i.e. one contribution is enough). I think the response to email should be separated from the definition of an active contributor. Somebody may be otherwise “active”, but currently unable to respond to email. How much notice is given for a vote on licence change, and the response deadline should then be defined, and I would say using 28 or 30 days (or whole multiples of), which is in my experience pretty much standard in business and beauracracy (rather than “3 weeks”). Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
