On 17/04/2011 13:14, Francis Davey wrote:
[snip]
You, or anyone else, might think that these extra terms make the
overall deal a bad one. You might want (for example) OSMF to be more
restricted in what it can do with a contribution.
But that is a different argument from arguing with clause 2.
And for information to several respondents is a restatement of *intent*
behind clause 2, (thanks Francis for talking about the structure and
about how well or not it works):
OpenStreetMap is fundamentally about you going out with GPS devices and
entering your results, often augmenting them with tracings and
refinements from Yahoo and now Bing imagery. Your contribution
completely belongs to you whether or not you continue to participate
and, generally, when you die it is passed on to your estate and heirs
for a set number of years. Clause 2 asks that subject only to the must
of re-distribution under a free and open license and the option of first
level attribution, you freely throw your contribution into the pot.
Future decision making is now subject to collective, not individual,
decisions.
In the case of imports, it is our intent that if the data is conformant
with the then current end-user license, there should be no legal bar to
importing it. It is then up to future generation to look at any conflict
with any new license and decide whether to excise the data or abandon
the change. There is also a moral duty on the current generation to
decide how much they want to tie the hands for the future.
There were also questions about the fate of a proposal regarding imports
to extend the preamble of the clause like this:
Subject to Section 3 and 4 below /and to the extent that you are able to
do so/, ...
The License Working Group is happy with the primary intent of the
addition but felt that there were unfortunate side-effects if included
in the general terms. I personally do not currently see any obstacle to
special accounts being set up for specific discrete imports with this
wording. This would also give the community a chance to monitor what it
feels are good/bad candidates without being overly proscriptive,
something we lack at the moment.
Mike
License Working Group
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
