Am 13.02.2012 12:33, schrieb Frederik Ramm:
This can be read - as Simon seems to do it - to mean "the CTs
guarantee that required attribution will survive any future licence
changes", but I think he's on thin ice there; in my reading, the CTs
promise that OSMF will provide attribution, not that OSMF will only
ever release your data under licenses that guarantee attribution down
the line.
My statement should naturally be read in the context of the statement
below: if we distribute your data, the attribution via website (and
further schemes that are being developed) will remain intact.
But Simon is right when he says "data with such requirements would
have to be removed". This means that if we ever wanted to go PD, then
we'd have to find out which data has some kind of attribution
requirement attached, and remove that data before we go PD. Since we
don't require such data to be identified at the moment, that would be
one hell of a job.
In my eyes, this is a very sad development that undermines any future
license change, even one to a non-PD license. Earlier versions of the
CT basically required you to *only* contribute data of which you could
surely say that it could be relicensed freely under the provisions of
"free and open" and "2/3 of mappers agree". This as been whittled down
to "you can contribute anything that is compatible with the current
license and you don't even have to *tell* us what further restrictions
it is under". Any future license change has therefore become very
unlikely - except maybe a switch back to a CC license -, and not much
remains of the license change provision in the CTs.
While I've expressed my displeasure with every revision of the CTs after
1.0 for exactly your reasoning, I don't believe that the situation is
quite as bad as you paint it. Come April the 1st the only extra "string
attached" to data that is in the database should be attribution via the
Website. Which implies that further data removal would only be necessary
if we wanted to use a distribution license that didn't require any
attribution at all, which is extremely unlikely (not the least because
of the necessary data removal).
Simon
PS: Andrzej will naturally point to the Polish situation, and I will
point back saying: please supply a list of the relevant changesets of
CC-by-2.0 data that were erroneously declared good (by way of excepting
the CTs).
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
