On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar <sea...@gmail.com> wrote: > IANAL, but as long as the data is currently being released as > CC-BY-SA, then there is no breach of the CC license.
Clause 4 of CC-BY-SA 2.0 only permits you to distribute copies of a deriviative work under the terms of the CC-BY-SA license. Uploading the derived work to OSM is a form of distribution. This can only be done under CC-BY-SAQ. You do not have the right to distribute the content to OSM on the terms required by the CTs. > > CC-BY-SA only stipulates that the data, when published, must be under > CC-BY-SA. It doesn't say that you cannot enter contracts promising to > release the data *in the future* under another license. You can indeed enter into a contract with OSMF but you cannot distribute CC-BY-SA content to them under the terms of that agreement. Arguably, users who have previously agreed that all their contributions to OSM are CC-BY-SA might still be covered by that as the CTs do not explicitly override that pre-existing agreement. The CTs require you to grant rights to OSMF that, for CC-BY-SA licensed content, you do not have. What OSMF subsequently proposes to do is irrelevant. > > If the data will be released *in the future* under a different > license, then it's true that the CC license is breached. Agreed, this issue is with users attempting to grant rights to OSMF now, not in the future, that they do not have. Contributors, not OSMF, are in breach of CC-BY-SA if they distribute CC-BY-SA derived contributions to OSM having agreed to the CTs. They are attempting to distribute content to OSM under an agreement that is not CC-BY-SA and they just plain cannot do that. > > But, in the case of OSM-ODbL, assuming that all the ODbL rejectors' IP > will be removed before the actual relicensing, since what remains is > the IP of all who have agreed to the CT, then it's like everyone > mutually agreed to relicense their own data under a new license, thus, > not breaching the CC license. > > > On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 5:39 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote: >> It would seem to me that anyone who has agreed to the contributor >> terms and who then edits content that is published by OSM is in breach >> of the CC-BY-SA license. >> >> Currently the OSM database is published as a CC-BY-SA work. If that >> content is downloaded from the OSM database and modified then this >> creates a derived work. >> >> If that derived work is loaded back to OSM then it can only be done so >> under the same license by which it was received, namely CC-BY-SA. >> That's the nature of the share alike clause in CC-BY-SA. But anyone >> who has agreed to the contributor terms is claiming that they can >> contribute this content under a different license. >> >> Now I know that it is the intention of OSMF to delete any such >> content, but in fact anyone who has edit such CC-BY-SA derived works >> is already in actual breach of the license under which they *received* >> that content. >> >> If you have agreed to the contributor terms you are likely to be >> breaching the terms of CC-BY-SA. >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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
