On 2 December 2010 01:36, Anthony <o...@inbox.org> wrote: > > Damn. I was hoping no one was going to notice that before the terms > went into effect :).
I'm pretty sure I pointed out difficulties with the wording a reasonably long time ago. Two remarks: - A court might interpret it in context to mean merely that OSMF may grant these rights to others (on the ground that if it were intended to permit anyone downloading the contributed data to receive the same rights as OSMF that would make nonsense of paragraph 3). I wouldn't put too high a probability on that happening. - OSMF may itself have rights in the data. A point we have discussed before is whether OSMF has any database rights of its own. I don't know the details of the factual situation, but from what has been said that seems unlikely, though things may change (OSMF's role may not stay static over the years). If OSMF did have its own rights then it would be possible to infringe them even with permission from the contributors. So, its not quite as simple as making the data PD, but it comes close. The better question to ask at this stage is, what is it for not what does it do? I didn't draft or propose this wording, but someone must have done and someone, or some people, must have an idea of what its function is supposed to be. It may be that a better wording to do (whatever it turns out to be for) will solve the problem, or it may be that there's a policy argument, which can be sorted out first before you get to the wording. Anyway, I hope that helps. -- Francis Davey _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
