On 13 April 2011 22:24, James Livingston <li...@sunsetutopia.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > After looking at the new CTs, I'm still a bit confused about whether I can > agree or not and what a few things actually mean. I was wondering if someone > could enlighten me. >
Answers are my best (informal) guess - so don't rely on it as formal legal advice. > > From clause 1 "If you contribute Contents, You are indicating that, as far as > You know, You have the right to authorize OSMF to use and distribute those > Contents under our current licence terms" > > To me, that says I can upload any data as long as it's compatible with > whatever license we are using at the time. That is, I can agree to the CTs > and then still upload ODbL incompatible data because our current licence is > CC-BY-SA. > > * Is that a correct reading? Yes. > * If so, how do we know what data must be removed in a switch to ODbL? > That clause doesn't appear to put any obligation on you to remove data. All it requires of you is that _when you contribute_ you have a right to give that authorisation. > > Clause 2 is a grant for certain rights. From previous discussion here, can I > assume that I can agree if I'm not the copyright holder, and that I only > grant the rights I can under the licence I received the data under? > That depends very much on the licence, but for many licences the answer will be no. For example most CC licences don't give you the right to grant such a licence. > If that is correct, then OSMF may not be able to re-license under clause 3. > For example I got data that could be re-licensed under CC-BY-SA and ODbL so I > could upload it, it's not necessarily going to be able to be re-licensed > under any arbitrary future licence. How do we indicate that? > It is not correct. So the problem doesn't arise. The problem you raise illustrates why, in practice, you cannot give the grant in clause 2 if all you have is a CC-licence to use the data. > > If my earlier reading of clause 1 was wrong, and I can't agree to the CTs and > upload CC-BY-SA data - why? If it's related to clause 3, would that same > reason stop people uploading ODbL-only data in future since it can't be > re-licensed to CC-BY-SA (which is listed)? > I don't know why. I do know that the licence working group have thought a great deal about it and are always happy to accept constructive suggestions about it. I anticipate someone coming along and explaining. In answer to your last question: yes again. ODbL data does not allow you to make a grant as wide as that in clause 2. Whether any of these problems are real (rather than imagined) is another matter. In practice I suspect the likelihood of anyone bringing legal action for infringement is negligible. -- Francis Davey _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk