On 24 September 2010 13:04, 80n <[email protected]> wrote: > The contributor terms are asking people to agree to something that they > cannot.
My suggestion - which I believe has been/is being chewed over by the LWG - is that the CT's make an alternative arrangement for contributors who want to contribute material that is licensed under some other licence. The way in which clause 2 works gives maximum flexibility to OSMF but it will often not be compatible with open licenses that are in common use - as you point out. Clause 2 is great for contributor generated data, but less apt for data owned by governments licensed under CC. As a general rule, saying what you mean in a contract is always a good idea. If the plan is that contributors are intended to be able to contribute CC material, then it might not be a bad thing for the CTs to say so. One way to do this is to give a short + long list in the CT: i.e. state that in the alternative to clause 2, the data is licensed under CC or under one of a list of licenses published by OSMF (which can then be updated over time at need, for example to deal with OS's licenses). That way, OSMF can decide what licenses it can accept, and contributors don't have to worry too much. If they are concerned they just check the list and email someone to ask for a new licence to be added if need be. The main disadvantage of this method is that decisions about what data to accept will preclude future decisions about licensing by the OSMF. It might be nice to be able to keep all options open for the future, but that could only be the situation where contributors are contributing only their own data. As soon as you start permitting other datasets you have to deal with potential conflicts. -- Francis Davey _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
