On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 18:18, Mike Collinson <m...@ayeltd.biz> wrote: > Comments in-line. > > At 06:14 PM 19/05/2010, Ævar 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.
Has there been any update on this? Can we include the human readable terms yet? >>> 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
