----- Original Message -----
From: "Frederik Ramm" <frede...@remote.org>
To: "Licensing and other legal discussions."
<legal-talk@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 12:16 AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
Hi,
David Groom wrote:
Your above paragrapgh neatly sums up to me why the CT's are incompatible
with CC-BY, or CC-BY-SA, or indeed many more licences , in that
compatability of the CT's could only be ensured if:
(a) There was some technical mechanism for fallginf data which needs to
be removed , and there is no such mechanism; and
(b) There was a guarntee that usch data "WOULD" be removed, and there is
no such guarantee.
As I understood it, the old CTs basically required the contributor to
guarantee that his contribution was compatible with the CT, while the
new CTs only require the contributor to guarantee that his contribution
is compatible with whatever the current license is.
You're right in that nobody guarantees that data would be removed in the
event of a change of license, but I don't think that this puts the
contributor in legal peril.
I don't see any problem on the contributor's side. Where I see the
problems with this approach is on the OSMF side.
The problem I have from a contributors side is that if, as a contributor I
know there is no guarantee that incompatible data will be removed should a
licence change occur, and if I know that given the current OSM set up there
is in fact no technical mechanism that such data could be identified in the
first place, then am I legally in a position to submit such data if I have
agreed to the CT's (and /or can I agree to the CT's having submitted such
data in the past).
Then of course there is the moral question as to whether I believe it would
be right to submit such data.
David
Bye
Frederik
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
