Francis Davey <fjm...@...> writes: >I misunderstood your objection. My understanding of the current policy >is that a contributor does permit OSMF to use a different (future) >licence. That is the reason for the perpetual licence.
OK, in that case this needs to be clarified too, since we have all confused ourselves on this list, and if we have done so others might too. So, in that case, if you must give sufficient permission to allow OSMF to choose (pretty much) any licence it wants in future, it would not be possible to add third-party data released under anything less than fully-permissive terms, even if it happened to be compatible with the licence OSM uses at present. >NB: I don't have a view on this at all and am not trying to influence policy. No, me neither. (Well I do have a view, which is that granting extra rights to a privileged body such as the OSMF is a bad idea, and we should all simply license our contributions under an agreed share-alike licence - but that is not part of this discussion.) I'm just trying to winkle out exactly what the proposed CTs are intended to mean. -- Ed Avis <e...@waniasset.com> _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
