I think that the pertinent question is whether Steve deliberately accepted the CT and license or was he hijacked by a bad UI.
David. PS. Wow, reading all of the emails on this subject over the last year, it is clear that this license issue and the way that it has been handled is obviously the best thing that ever happened to OSM and the OSM community! Personally, I don't have any strong technical reasons to favor either side the debate over the status quo license and the new license and CT, but in observing how this whole debacle has been handled, my gut is definitely against it now. On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:55 AM, Serge Wroclawski <emac...@gmail.com> wrote: > This should really be taking place on the legal list but nonetheless: > > On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Steve Bennett <stevag...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> So, this is awkward. According to my profile, I've "agreed to the >> new Contributor Terms". I have no recollection of having done so, and >> obviously I don't want to agree to them while they're incompatible >> with Nearmap. > <snip> > >> So: >> 1) Could someone please unset this flag for me: (User: stevage) > > Unsetting the flag has repercussions to the organization which I think > you should be aware of. > > The CT isn't a license, it's a terms of agreement. That means you've > given OSMF a license to the data, and now you're asking them to revoke > that license. > > This would be (moral if not legal) equivalent of someone offering up a > program under the GPL and then saying "Nope, I want it proprietary". > > Going forward, of course, you can choose your own terms, but you can't > retroactively revoke the license, because that's spelled out > explicitly in the license itself. > > My suggestion to you personally, if you don't like the project's > terms, then you should stop submitting data to it immediately. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
