Comments in-line. At 06:14 PM 19/05/2010, Ãvar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 16:42, Mike Collinson <m...@ayeltd.biz> wrote: >> Great idea, thanks for taking the initiative on this. I had a go with your >> text and the underlying ideas we used to construct the terms below. > >Great, any idea about what timeframe we might be looking at for >rollout of it on the signup form? I will dodge that question until we have had legal review on a draft that everyone is reasonably happy with but I promise to push it forward. >> Summary of OpenStreetMap Contributor Terms: >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >There's a lot I like about it, including that it's using bullet >points. Those are easier to wade through. And easier to translate. > >> - Don't put in copyrighted data. It should either be your own work or >> something that there is clear permission to use. > >Perhaps just talk about "data you don't have permission to submit" or >something like that. Let's not propagate the copyrighted != non-free >misunderstanding. Good point. I've changed http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms_Summary >> - You still own the bits of data you put in, i.e. you can still use them in >> other places. >> >> - You allow the OpenStreetMap Foundation to publish your bits of data as >> part of the OpenStreetMap geodata database for others to use. >> >> - The OpenStreetMap Foundation can only publish the data under a free and >> open license. If it fails in that, it has broken a contract with you. > >Actually, aside from these terms is "free and open license" defined >anywhere as the OSMF is using it? Some define it as "licenses approved >be the OSI + FSF, but that's obviously not true in our case. It is deliberately not defined. The reasoning is that it is clear when a license is NOT "free and open" (which is what we really, really want to avoid), but we will all have ideas about what IS a "free and open" license. That will promote healthy debate and will change over time. It is up to future generations of mappers, not us here and now ... and certainly not by that d****d License Working Group. >> - Until the proposed change-over, that license is the CC BY SA 2.0. When >> enough existing contributors agree to re-license their data, that license >> will change to Open Database License 1.0. >> >> - The OpenStreetMap Foundation can only pick a new free license if it's >> approved by the OSMF membership (a foundation of paid-up members) and a 2/3 >> majority vote of active contributors. You'll be considered an active >> contributor if you've edited in at least 3 out of the last 12 months and >> don't take longer than 3 weeks to reply to E-Mail. >> >> - If you want attribution you should add your name to the Contributors page. >> >> - To the maximum extent possible, neither you nor the OpenStreetMap >> Foundation are responsible for anything that might happen to folks using >> your data. > >FWIW I left this bit out, I don't see whe warranty footnotes need to >be in the summary, but perhaps the legally inclined disagree. Not critical, but I think it is worth reassuring new contributors that the language protects them rather than the reverse. >> This is only a summary and is not legally binding. The full text can be >> found at http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms Mike License Working Group _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
