Hi, Gioele wrote: > Instead of choosing between re-licensing to ODbL and having their > contribution removed, they could choose to release their contribution (past > and future) into public domain.
Should we go ahead with the ODbL relicensing - a question that is still not answered and for which we'll have to thoroughly evaluate wheter ODbL as it has emerged now really does what we want - then this idea has my full support. On the surface it is only formalising something we're doing on the Wiki anyway, but I feel that this would be a good move to show the PD people that they have at least been listened to, even if the end result is something else. It does not hurt OSM to give PD people this option of expressing themselves, but it does a great deal for them. It has to made clear of course that PD data in a database governed by contractual and database restrictions (like the ODbL) is not really worth anything, so the fact that individual bits inside the database are PD would only have a symbolic meaning. Also, of course, if someone makes a PD contribution on top of a CC-BY-SA licensed contribution by someone else, then only the "diff" is PD, and the resulting object is still CC-BY-SA. I think when we send out the note to people (or put up a web page) it should say: (a) I don't support the new license or anything else, delete my data. (b) I hereby agree to ODbL (<url>) and to the contribution agreement at <url> and for the time it takes to make the switch I'm fine with CC-BY-SA as well. (c) I really don't care, all my past and future contributions to OSM are PD, do what you want. Answer (c) would then simply set a flag in the user preferences somewhere and that's it - for everything else we would act just the same as if the user had answered (b). Bye Frederik _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
