Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
Simon Poole wrote: > That however does require the importer/mapper to raise the > issue to a level where that support exists. As the LWG has > pointed out, that hasn't worked in the past, and there is IMHO > no reason to believe that it will magically start working in the > future. Oh, sure, nothing "magically starts working". It requires willingness and commitment to make it work, just like everything else in OSM. I'm willing to put effort into licence compatibility (and have made suggestions to LWG, which they've taken up, to ensure CT compatibility with attribution-required licences). Are you? Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/New-phrase-in-section-2-tp5793972p5815086.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
Hi Mike,
On 7 December 2010 21:44, Mike Collinson wrote:
> And to confirm ... the new phrase was introduced by mistake when initially
> setting up the 1.1 draft document and carried over into 1.2. I have removed
> it and checked all the other wording, though I'd certainly appreciate
> another check. The only difference between the proposed 1.2 text:
>
> http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_933xs7nvfb
The "active contributor" definition contains "who that has edited"
("who" or "that" is not needed).
Can you explain what "You do not need to guarantee that [contributed
data is compatible with our license]" means? Since OSMF is not bound
to remove such conflicting data is there any possibility a user can
submit such data without automatically being in violation of the third
party's rights?
(I have the same doubt about not guaranteeing compatibility with
future OSM licenses)
Cheers
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
On 3 December 2010 16:21, Anthony wrote: > On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Richard Fairhurst > wrote: >> Rather, as Francis pointed out: "A mistake? Someone infelicitously drafting >> the licence? It does happen you know :-)." >> >> Or, as ever with OSM, never attribute to conspiracy that which can be >> adequately explained by cock-up. > > The whole thing is a mistake, but I find it hard to believe that the > wording of the license was an accident. The fact that it got re-added > in 1.2 was probably an accident, but the appearance of it in 0.9? How > could it be an accident? > I'm a member of Licensing Working Group... I haven't followed this whole thread yet, but if there is a mistake it is a cocked up, not malicious. We only recently sent CT 1.2 to legal for their review, nothing back yet AFAIK... We're only human, but legal has lawyers! ;-) I'll raise this thread at our next meeting on Tuesday. Regards Grant LWG member. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
On 12/01/2010 11:40 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, fx99 wrote: 2 Rights granted. Subject to Section 3 and 4 below, You hereby grant to OSMF and any party that receives Your Contents a worldwide, . can somebody explain to me, who is meant by "any party that receives Your Contents" ? Would that not simply be anyone who e.g. downloads "your contents" from the OSMF servers? How does this grant interact with 3? Without 3 it would effectively PD the data wouldn't it? I appreciate that the DbCl effectively does this as well, and that in both cases the ODbL is what adds the share-alike; I'm just checking. ;-) - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
Hi, fx99 wrote: 2 Rights granted. Subject to Section 3 and 4 below, You hereby grant to OSMF and any party that receives Your Contents a worldwide, . can somebody explain to me, who is meant by "any party that receives Your Contents" ? Would that not simply be anyone who e.g. downloads "your contents" from the OSMF servers? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
