Mikel, stop trying to smooth talk. The CT says fundamentally nothing about GPS and entering data, but talks just
about transferring rights to an arbitrary group of individuals called OSMF, members of the osm community, (currently)with and (in the future?) without the best intents for the project. So do not try make it more fuzzy then it is. The License is about letting OSMF decide how the project will go regarding the open and free aspects of OSM. That is is the *pain*. It's about the future of the project regarding its core, being free to anyone, and not have this decided by a foundation, however good the current intentions are. The CT tries to safeguard the open and free aspects, but the wording is really binding, and we all know that legal texts are there to be interpreted . We all know that also 2/3 of active contributors will always be found, there are simply too many people that don't matter, and do what they're asked. In addition to that a lot of us don't like this license stuff. And don't like to be submitted to contracts if not absolutely necessary. And don't like the principle of defending any imaginary legal rights by contracts. if one day the OSM will be competitive qualitatively with commercial GEODATA the data will be copied before we notice, and their lawyers (and there will be a bunch of them) will have no problem with our stupid licenses. And we will all stand back and wonder how ! Gert Gremmen Van: Michael Collinson [mailto:m...@ayeltd.biz] Verzonden: zondag 17 april 2011 14:41 Aan: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT) On 17/04/2011 13:14, Francis Davey wrote: [snip] You, or anyone else, might think that these extra terms make the overall deal a bad one. You might want (for example) OSMF to be more restricted in what it can do with a contribution. But that is a different argument from arguing with clause 2. And for information to several respondents is a restatement of *intent* behind clause 2, (thanks Francis for talking about the structure and about how well or not it works): OpenStreetMap is fundamentally about you going out with GPS devices and entering your results, often augmenting them with tracings and refinements from Yahoo and now Bing imagery. Your contribution completely belongs to you whether or not you continue to participate and, generally, when you die it is passed on to your estate and heirs for a set number of years. Clause 2 asks that subject only to the must of re-distribution under a free and open license and the option of first level attribution, you freely throw your contribution into the pot. Future decision making is now subject to collective, not individual, decisions. In the case of imports, it is our intent that if the data is conformant with the then current end-user license, there should be no legal bar to importing it. It is then up to future generation to look at any conflict with any new license and decide whether to excise the data or abandon the change. There is also a moral duty on the current generation to decide how much they want to tie the hands for the future. There were also questions about the fate of a proposal regarding imports to extend the preamble of the clause like this: Subject to Section 3 and 4 below and to the extent that you are able to do so, ... The License Working Group is happy with the primary intent of the addition but felt that there were unfortunate side-effects if included in the general terms. I personally do not currently see any obstacle to special accounts being set up for specific discrete imports with this wording. This would also give the community a chance to monitor what it feels are good/bad candidates without being overly proscriptive, something we lack at the moment. Mike License Working Group
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
