This is really the wrong list for this discussion, but as I've pointed
out before
there are further "minor" points that would have to be considered, for
example
voting rights on future license changes. Obviously you could simply assume
that all PD contributors don't care, I'm just not quite sure that this
is really the
case.
It is clearly the easier, pragmatic and sensible thing to do to simply
accept the CTs.
Simon
Am 03.09.2011 10:38, schrieb Robert Whittaker (OSM):
On 3 September 2011 05:03, Russ Nelson<nel...@crynwr.com> wrote:
The first is a contract of adhesion: "Here's my
work; I renounce any copyright claims over it." The OSMF has the
choice of accepting that contract or rejecting it, just as it does the
contract formed by agreeing to the Contributor Terms. I don't
understand their choice of accepting the one contract but refusing the
other.
But "Here's my work; I renounce any copyright claims over it." doesn't
go as far as the contributor terms do. One would also need to add
something along the lines of "And I'm reasonably sure that no-one else
has any copyright claims over my contributions that would prevent OSMF
re-distributing them under the relevant licenses."
This ambiguity is presumably at least one of the reasons why LWG don't
feel they're able to accept arbitrary PD declarations. Personally, I'd
like to see them produce a simple boilerplate PD declaration that does
cover everything they want it to, and then allow people to agree to
that somehow. It would, however, need to be a wider rights grant than
in the Contributor Terms (since those are the minimum rights that LWG
feel they need). But from what I've read I think it could be worded so
as to get around the objections that the PD advocates have been
raising.
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
