Grant Slater wrote: > Reply was that on b) explicit permission to sub-license is granted by > their license with the conditions that required attribution is given and > sub licensees keep said attribution. With this response b) was seen as > compatible. Under a) it was advised there is an issue of sub-licensing. > Asking source author for permission to contribute under CT was an option; > as was to keep distributing said specific data under license. Item b) is > still open AFAIK.
I am not a lawyer, and many subtile things get lost in paraphrasing responses. But you state: "and sub _licensees_ keep said attribution". The CT don't appear to guarantee that. Clause 4, states "...OSMF agrees to attribute You..." It nowhere sais the license agrees to attribute, just that OSMF as an entity agrees to attribute. Assume for the moment the following scenario: OSMF move OSM to ODbL and CT. Now at some later stage all active contributors have a vote and decided by 2/3 majority to release data PD. Clearly a "free and open" license and allowed under CT. Clause 4 still stands so OSMF itself still has to attribute. However, now someone founds OSMF2 and OSMF is allowed to die. OSMF2 can take all data, as the data is PD and does not have to attribute. OSMF would still have to attribute, but it no longer exists. At no point did OSMF violate its contract with the contributors. OSMF2 is entirely separate from OSMF, so no contractual obligations between OSMF and its contributors carry over to OSMF2. Therefore, there is no attribution requirement left in the data. As there is always a possibility of OSMF sometime in the future stopping to exist. (Forks actually have the same effect), any "protection of the data" can't be part of the CT, but appears to have to be part of the license. As I said, I am not a lawyer and might be missing something obviouse (like how attribution chaining works in CC-BY and OS data license) Kai -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-OS-Opendata-the-new-license-tp5538273p5543986.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
