Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Can someone summarise arguments for/against clause 2 of CTs?
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 11:56 PM, Anthony wrote: >> I guess clause 2 is redundant. It would be sufficient to simply say >> "contributors agree to license their contributions under the DbCL". > > Except that Clause 3 contains " or another free and open license." How is that relevant? I think you missed the point. DbCL says this: "The Licensor grants to You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable copyright license to do any act that is restricted by copyright over anything within the Contents, whether in the original medium or any other. These rights explicitly include commercial use, and do not exclude any field of endeavour. These rights include, without limitation, the right to sublicense the work." Clause 2 says: "Subject to Section 3 below, You hereby grant to OSMF a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable license to do any act that is restricted by copyright over anything within the Contents, whether in the original medium or any other. These rights explicitly include commercial use, and do not exclude any field of endeavour. These rights include, without limitation, the right to sublicense the work through multiple tiers of sublicensees. To the extent allowable under applicable local laws and copyright conventions, You also waive and/or agree not to assert against OSMF or its licensees any moral rights that You may have in the Contents." --- Taking it piece by piece: "Subject to Section 3 below" - so Clause 2 only grants a subset of DbCL; "irrevocable copyright license" -> "irrevocable license" - probably not significant since copyright is mentioned 9 words later; "through multiple tiers of sublicensees." - provides a minor bit of clarification, but legally redundant; "To the extent allowable under applicable local laws and copyright conventions, You also waive and/or agree not to assert against OSMF or its licensees any moral rights that You may have in the Contents." OK, maybe that has some non-redundant effect in some jurisdictions. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Can someone summarise arguments for/against clause 2 of CTs?
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 9:52 AM, Anthony wrote: > My question is why do the contributors have to allow OSMF to license > their contributions under BY-SA and ODbL (and DbCL, don't forget about > DbCL). Why can't the contributors do that themselves? And actually, BY-SA *contains* permission to license derivatives under BY-SA. ODbL *contains* permission to license derivatives under ODbL. DbCL *contains*...well it contains clause 2! I guess clause 2 is redundant. It would be sufficient to simply say "contributors agree to license their contributions under the DbCL". ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Can someone summarise arguments for/against clause 2 of CTs?
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Rob Myers wrote: > On 09/23/2010 01:52 PM, Anthony wrote: >> >> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 4:12 AM, Rob Myers wrote: >>> >>> On 09/20/2010 05:14 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: I'm asking about Clause 2: specifically, why does OSMF need special rights over contributors' data? >>> >>> OSM(F) needs to be able to place contributions under BY-SA now and later >>> under the ODbL. >> >> Why do they need to do this? > > So that the data(base) can be switched to ODbL. > >> Specifically, why can't the contributors >> do this themselves? > > They are agreeing to the change. Your explanation makes no sense. My question is why do the contributors have to allow OSMF to license their contributions under BY-SA and ODbL (and DbCL, don't forget about DbCL). Why can't the contributors do that themselves? Yes, the contributors (at least, some of them) are agreeing to the change. But why is the change need to be implemented the way it is being implemented). >>> OSM(F) may also need to relicence the data again in future, as Clause 3 >>> indicates. Clause 2 makes this possible. >> >> I understand that explanation. But not the other one. > > From the point of view of two or five years ago, this is the future. Clause 3 allows OSMF to relicense the data in the future without getting permission in the future. To the extent "this is the future", that doesn't apply, because you are trying to get permission *now* for relicensing *now*. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Can someone summarise arguments for/against clause 2 of CTs?
On 09/23/2010 01:52 PM, Anthony wrote: On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 4:12 AM, Rob Myers wrote: On 09/20/2010 05:14 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: I'm asking about Clause 2: specifically, why does OSMF need special rights over contributors' data? OSM(F) needs to be able to place contributions under BY-SA now and later under the ODbL. Why do they need to do this? So that the data(base) can be switched to ODbL. Specifically, why can't the contributors do this themselves? They are agreeing to the change. OSM(F) may also need to relicence the data again in future, as Clause 3 indicates. Clause 2 makes this possible. I understand that explanation. But not the other one. From the point of view of two or five years ago, this is the future. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
