>Martin Koppenhoefer Fri Jun 14 10:44:58 UTC 2013 >You are comparing apples to pears, as the mappers in the license change had >their contributions licensed cc-by-sa, while now we are in ODbL with >different terms and obligations, so you can't really deduct anything from >the former situation to where we are now in terms of licensing or rights >affected.
I said: >The set of rules that the redaction bot followed, to enable the license >change, is by >the bots work now coded into the history of our database in such a way that >changing >these rules would force us to revert the entire license change. I would >suspect that >if a license dispute about OSM ever end up in court, we will not be able to >argue for >more copyright protection than what we gave to those contributors who did not >want the >license to change. I would also like to argue that, when a question comes in >if a user >can or can not do something without breaching our copyright, we should always >start >the discussion by looking for similar examples in our own change to the ODbL. I will try to clarify what I said earlier, as I think you might have misunderstood what I tried to say: Whether the decliners had their contributions licensed under cc-by-sa or a fully proprietary license is irrelevant. This is not a question about different licensing terms, but rather if the license even applies at all. I believe that our license change, through the bots work, has set some very strict boundaries for how far we now can argue that our copyright reaches. Therefore I think that we should always start any licensing discussion with looking at our license change, to see if we can argue that we have any copyright in the given situation. Only after this step has been completed should we look to the ODbL and what it says about the question at hand. /Olov _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
