On 6 December 2010 14:55, Serge Wroclawski <emac...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > > If Nearmap is CC-BY-SA, they're compatible now.
But the Contributor Terms aren't compatible. It's not some theoretical issue, they are actually incompatible in that you can't give OSMF the rights listed in CT to something licensed CC-By-SA (yes, this belongs on the legal list but I wanted to correc this) > >> Sadly, the GUI doesn't tell me when this flag was set, >> nor does it provide a way to unset it. (I could also complain about >> the fact that there are no indications anywhere else that you're >> operating in a totally different licensing mode, but I'll leave it.) > > You're not "operating in a totally difference licensing mode", the > work is licensed under CC-BY-SA until the switchover. > >> 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". With regards to what Steve submitted so far, yes, but he should be able to decide the terms for his new edits. > > 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. Or let's discuss the terms and come up with something that satisfies more people. There is a very vocal group, including you saying that this is now "the project's terms" in ways that try to sound authoritative, but 1. these terms are still in flux which you know about, so what are the actual terms? the 1.0 or the 1.1 or the upcoming 1.2? 2. assuming that the project is the community then the new terms are just the terms of a part of the project and what the "committee" up there decides doesn't automatically become fact. And telling the other part of the project to go away you're not helping OSM, so in your words "Please don't make more trouble for OSM", you did seem like a nice guy at the SoTM. (which is irrelevant, but that's apparently the way to communicate) Cheers _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
