Steve Coast <st...@asklater.com> wrote: > Well the eternal right thing applies to CC and most other licenses, so I
There's a difference between an irrevocable licence and an irrevocable, all-encompassing rights grant. CC and most other open licences are the former, OSM's CTs require the latter. > suspect that you don't like who the licensee is, OSMF? That's the reason it's Don't care who. The Free Software Foundation requires a copyright assignment for contributions to GNU projects and I'm uncomfortable with that too, even though I feel I can trust FSF way more than OSMF. > shaped that the OSMF immediately license it back. From what I remember, our > legal advice was there has to be a licensing party that things are assigned to > in order to make it work. The contributor can be the licencing party, there's no requirement for OSM to take that role. > As for future licensing, do you have a better idea? Yes. Stick with CC-BY-SA and don't demand a rights grant. > Why don't you start at the beginning and explain what, where and when this > data > was imported? Did you ever bring it up with the LWG? Australian government data, and this has been the main sticking point in the licencing debate since the start. Are you seriously going to claim ignorance on this? -- Sam Couter | mailto:s...@couter.id.au OpenPGP fingerprint: A46B 9BB5 3148 7BEA 1F05 5BD5 8530 03AE DE89 C75C
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
