Tom Hughes wrote: > Which is clearly in conflict with the CTs which require you to > grant OSMF a license to sublicense any data you upload under > a license of their choosing subject only to a constraint that > the license they choose is "open and free" which clearly does > not restrict their choice to licenses that would pass on the > attribution requirement.
Indeed. New BDFL guidelines prevent me from restating what I've said before, i.e. that this would be fixed by replacing the "unlimited licence upgrade" clause (3) with a "CC-BY-SA or ODbL only" clause. So I won't. :) I understand from LWG minutes that LWG has unfortunately chosen not to take this suggestion up. However, it is still open to LWG to qualify "free and open" with "with an attribution requirement" (perhaps subject to such attribution requirement being approved by OSMF on a case-by-case basis). It's been suggested that LWG is considering this, although it hasn't made it into the minutes. Mike, could you: - clarify whether or not LWG is considering this; - and consider this e-mail as a request to add such a qualification, as quickly as possible. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Voluntary-re-licensing-begins-tp5415293p5416193.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
