Hi Tobias That sounds better.
The main question is what "expect it to survive a hypothetical license change" implies. My expectation is that because of practical considerations any future licence would require downstream attribution of OSM so that the OSMF can continue to offer third party sources indirect attribution. You could naturally argue about how much the OSMF is committed to individual sources to keep the chain OSM attribution -> 3rd party source attribution around, but that disruption is not worth it IMHO.
Simon Am 29.11.2022 um 00:48 schrieb Tobias Knerr:
On 28.11.22 at Simon Poole wrote:What is "OSM Contributor Terms compatibility" supposed to be?Ok, this is clearly imprecise wording.¹The context is that we would like to offer data donors a standard legal text that they can use to make their data available to OSM in such a way that we would expect it to survive a hypothetical license change. And yes, this would perhaps look similar to a CC0 waiver, except that it could potentially be a bit more limited (in a similar way the CT limits the set of licenses under which the OSMF can choose to publish the database).So the column would be mostly about whether this legal text or something equivalent has been signed or not (+ perhaps public domain/CC0 data that has the ability to survive a license change by default could also check the box).Tobias¹ The wording is my fault and, iirc, was inspired by the column name at https://wiki.osm.org/Import/ODbL_Compatibility_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
