Hi Michael
Obviously I would clearly prefer that the mappers in question simply
discover some pragmatism and get over any issues they may have with the
OSMF.
However that doesn't seem to happening and I would hope that giving them
an alternative path to retain their data in the DB (which is not really
very attractive for a number of reasons) could loosen things up a bit.
Simon
Am 31.08.2011 15:25, schrieb Michael Collinson:
Hi Simon,
Basically no. Our stance is that the only copy of their data that is
accessible is what they contributed only under CC-BY-SA in a database
which is published CC-BY-SA. Whilst that stance may be arguable, the
number of contributors is small, (3?), there is still a paradox
between making a broad PD/CC0 declaration and not accepting the more
limited subset new contributor terms, and there is a simple, practical
solution without involving folks in a lot of technical work.
Such mappers have taken a principled and clear but minority position
that OSM data should be published PD/CC0 right now and have not
accepted the contributors terms to make that point. The simple
practical solution is to now accept the terms having made the point.
Outside the right now, the new terms do not logically conflict and
provide a rational mechanism for further engagement with the OSM
community on what our license should be.
Mike
On 31/08/2011 12:07, Simon Poole wrote:
Would the LWG support assigning the change sets of mappers that have
made some kind of PD/CC0 declaration, to mappers that are willing to
vouch for the data and accept the CTs?
At least for mappers that have not explicitly declined the CTs this
would seem to be doable without creating a conflict.
Simon
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk