Two related things on Contributor Terms: > [80n on share-alike] > By comparison, ODbL+Contributor Terms has properties that break > this principle. A derived work can not be fed back into OSM unless > the author agrees to the contributor terms.
Matt set up a poll at http://doodle.com/5ey98xzwcz69ytq7 to see whether people prefer this behaviour or not. You should vote on this to help OSMF make an informed decision. (FWIW I greatly prefer removing this behaviour: I have enough confidence in the Open Data Commons project that ODbL will continue to be a suitable licence, through subsequent upgrades, that I don't feel the need to easily relicense is paramount.) > [Francis Davey] > What the Contributor Terms do is (i) give OSMF the usual royalty- > free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable licence with a right to > sub-licence; and (ii) grants the same licence to anyone that > "receives Your Contribution". [...] > (ii) is a bit odd - its effect appears to be to nullify any copyright > in "Your Contribution" since anyone who copies it is surely > someone who receives it. It would appear to prevent anyone > suing for breach of copyright. We discussed this on IRC just before Christmas and it was suggested that simply removing (ii) would fix most of the issues. I would be very happy to see this happen. I think Matt was going to suggest this to LWG. So from here it looks to me as if LWG is taking note of people's suggestions just as it should be. But perhaps someone from LWG could confirm how/if the Contributor Terms might be revised in the light of these two suggestions. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Copyright-Assignment-tp26927109p27026599.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
