----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Fairhurst" <rich...@systemed.net>
To: <legal-talk@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 4:48 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
John Smith wrote:
Thanks for the clarification. In your opinion, what would be the
minimum license rendered images could be licensed as?
An attribution-only licence - CC-BY, for example.
If attribution will also be required on tiles, you have a chain of
attribution that can be followed
Right, yes.
if data is licensed in future so
that at least produced data doesn't have an attribution requirement
I don't think it can be - the agreement between OSMF and the Contributor
to
attribute is perpetual, rather than being subject to any future licence
change - but even if it were, CT 1.2.2 puts the onus on OSMF to remove the
data in the case of incompatibility, rather than on the Contributor to
Actually it does not put the onus on OSMF to remove the data. It says they
"may" remove the data, it doesn't say they will remove the data, or even
that they will make any attempt to remove it. Indeed I'm sure it has been
argued by others that putting the onus on OSMF to remove the data is placing
"too high a burden" on OSMF.
David
safeguard against all future possibilities.
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5889351.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
