On 16 June 2011 07:58, Francis Davey <fjm...@gmail.com> wrote: > The right question - when considering deletions - is, can the OSMF use > this dataset as part of the OSM. That is a question of compatibility > between the original licence (in this case the OS Opendata licence) > and the way in which OSMF uses it. > > In this respect the OS Opendata licence seems fairly good. There are > some minor points of pedantry (I don't know if OSMF complies properly > with the PECD for instance) and the OS Opendata licence fails to > expressly allow sublicensing, but that appears implied from the rest > of the terms.
I'm afraid I have to disagree with your conclusion as I don't think deletions alone is the right thing to be considering. A major purpose of the CTs is to ensure that all the data remaining in OSM is suitable for re-licensing under any "Free and Open" license without the need for further checks. Given the amount of discussion that took place when the CTs were being developed, one has to assume that this requirement is quite deliberate (whether you agree with it or not), and the flexibility for re-licensing in the future is something that OSMF really wants. In this respect it is important (to OSMF at least) that we arrive at an OSM database that only contains data that can be re-licensed in this way. So even if OSMF is legally ok to continue distributing OS OpenData under ODbL, it wouldn't be in line with the above philosophy to leave OS OpenData-derived content in the database if we can't guarantee that it's 'safe' for future re-licensing. (Though maybe OSMF will change their mind on this point...) Therefore, the right question to ask at the moment is whether the original license of the source material is compatible with distribution of a derived work under an arbitrary and unspecified "free and open" license. If we're not asking this question, then it rather defeats the whole point of this requirement in the CTs. We might as well just rip up the CTs, only ask mappers to ensure their data is compatible with the currently proposed licenses, and postpone the problems with re-licensing to the point where we actually want to change the license again. Those accepting the CTs without the appropriate rights to allow re-licensing under any "free and open" license, may not be creating any legal problems for themselves or OSM in the short term. But they are presumably open to a breach of contract suit being brought by OSMF, and (more importantly) are giving the community and OSMF the misleading impression that their contributions are 'safe' for re-licensing in the future. If OSMF want us just to consider current licensing, then they need to change the CTs. They should not be asking mappers to sign something that is false because they failed to realise the consequences of their drafting. In the case of OS OpenData, OSMF and/or LWG need to decide whether or not they believe OS OpenData can be used under the terms of the CTs. If not, then they need to work out what people who have made use of the data should do with regard to signing the CTs, and what they are going to do with the OS OpenData-derived content currently in OSM. The way I see it there are two options: we either retain the re-licensing flexibility demanded by OSMF and remove all the OS OpenData from OSM, or we amend the CTs to allow OS OpenData to be kept, and accept a restriction on the possibilities for future re-licensing. (The other possibility of getting a private agreement between OSMF and OS seems to be dead in the water -- and I don't see why it would be in OS's interests to even consider something like that anyway.) To return to the original question. There should probably be two maps of "content to be deleted". One simply with everything but CT-accepts (which would presumably be safe for distribution under ODbL), and one where we also flag any data we believe doesn't allow future licensing under any "free and open" license (which would indeed include OS OpenData as far as I can tell). The community / OSMF can then decide which system it wants to go with. (However, these views wouldn't be perfect, since there are be people, such as myself, who haven't signed the CTs only because of their use of OS OpenData. Hence the data losses if future re-licensing were to be abandoned would be less than indicated.) Robert. -- Robert Whittaker _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk