Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Voluntary re-licansing and CT 1.1

Ed Avis writes: > Perhaps there should be a meta-contributor-terms where you agree to > accept future > contributor terms proposed by the OSMF. Then there wouldn't be the need to > re-ask everybody each time the contributor terms change. Insurance companies would love this idea :) However, I c

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Checking if I understand correctly...

andrzej zaborowski writes: >To answer Steve's question: yes, neither CC-By-SA >nor ODbL nor CC-By-SA and ODbL dual-license are compatible with the >current contributor terms. Or, in other words, OSM itself is not compatible with them. -- Ed Avis _

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Checking if I understand correctly...

On 5 October 2010 08:28, Ed Avis wrote: > andrzej zaborowski writes: > >>To answer Steve's question: yes, neither CC-By-SA >>nor ODbL nor CC-By-SA and ODbL dual-license are compatible with the >>current contributor terms. > > Or, in other words, OSM itself is not compatible with them. > Automati

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Checking if I understand correctly...

Grant Slater writes: >>>neither CC-By-SA >>>nor ODbL nor CC-By-SA and ODbL dual-license are compatible with the >>>current contributor terms. >> >>Or, in other words, OSM itself is not compatible with them. > >Automatic presumed compatibility no. Receiving permission from >restrictive data source

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

To come back on topic, I don't think this has made legal-talk yet. Thanks to Jordan Hatcher, whose mail I am re-working: The new UK Open Government Licence is now out:

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Voluntary re-licansing and CT 1.1

At 09:03 AM 5/10/2010, Jukka Rahkonen wrote: >Ed Avis writes: > >> Perhaps there should be a meta-contributor-terms where you agree to >> accept future >> contributor terms proposed by the OSMF. Then there wouldn't be the need to >> re-ask everybody each time the contributor terms change. > >Ins

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Checking if I understand correctly...

On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 3:28 AM, Mike Collinson wrote: > A CC-BY-SA license *is* an explicit permission to you by the rights holder.   > So that is not a problem and we will revise the CTs to better communicate > that in plain language. What I was getting at: 1) The CTs require that incoming be l

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Checking if I understand correctly...

On 6 October 2010 00:04, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 3:28 AM, Mike Collinson wrote: >> A CC-BY-SA license *is* an explicit permission to you by the rights holder.   >> So that is not a problem and we will revise the CTs to better communicate >> that in plain language. > > What

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Checking if I understand correctly...

On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 9:24 AM, andrzej zaborowski wrote: > There are also the Public Domain dedication licenses and the > attribution-only licenses, which possibly may be treated as an > authorisation from the provider to include the data in OSM. Oh, that's a good point. So there are existing li