Frederik Ramm <frederik@...> writes: >But, even after the switch to ODbL, OSMF could go back to CC-BY-SA 2.0 >at any time - and would, as far as I can see, only need a simple >majority board decision for that.
Not so - in the meantime, information might have been added to the map which is not compatible with CC-BY-SA 2.0. Recall the wording of the contributor terms and the clarification given by the LWG: contributions have to be compatible with the *current* licence, whatever that may be. That means that right now, users are able to upload contributions which (because of rights held by third parties) are usable under CC-BY-SA 2.0 only - and that is why 'odbl=clean' and 'contributor_terms=clean' are not quite the same thing. If the licence is changed, then from that point onwards it will be possible to upload contributions which are usable only under the newer licence. This is one reason why dual licensing under both CC-BY-SA and ODbL is a good idea - it makes sure that, under the contributor terms, new contributions to the map are usable under both licences. >This puts OSMF in a position of quite some power. That's a whole nother discussion. Personally, I would advocate splitting OSMF in two: one organization which manages the servers, holds the openstreetmap.org domain name and any related naming rights such as trademarks, and performs most of the other OSMF functions. The second organization would exist only to hold rights in the map database and sublicense it under ODbL/DbCL or other licences. This split would add some useful checks and balances - among other things it would prevent control of the servers being used to force through licence changes. -- Ed Avis <e...@waniasset.com> _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
