On 27 November 2011 15:14, Richard Fairhurst <rich...@systemed.net> wrote: > andrzej zaborowski wrote: >> Honestly both solutions are kind of ugly because they mess up >> edits history. If some data is PD then it should be possible to just >> retain it in the event of a license change, the SQL query is unlikely >> to change its legal status. > > Surely you understand that the issue is not the legal status of the data in > isolation, it's whether or not the mapper associated with that data has > assented to the CTs. The CTs say "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". For one reason or another, TimSC, > for example, does not want to give that assurance to OSMF; I am, however, > happy to do so for his data.
Right, I'm just saying that amending the edits history so that it's (in a way) false also seems like the wrong tool to achieve this. Additionally to switch to ODbL the OSMF will need an assurance that data is compatible with ODbL instead of only with the current license terms which CT requires. (different topic) Cheers _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
