Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Adopt a PD-Mapper ....... was Re: Refusing CT but declaring contributions as PD
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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Adopt a PD-Mapper ....... was Re: Refusing CT but declaring contributions as PD
On 1 September 2011 18:25, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: 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. That's an interesting spin on things, wouldn't the pragmatic approach be for OSM-F to work with CC to come up with a CC-by-SA license that is deemed more suitable? Not that I see anything wrong with the current license, in fact the whole exercise seems like a knee jerk reaction because some think something must be done. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Adopt a PD-Mapper ....... was Re: Refusing CT but declaring contributions as PD
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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Adopt a PD-Mapper ....... was Re: Refusing CT but declaring contributions as PD
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch 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? This seems simple. All you need to do is contact a mapper and ask him to give you his username and password. You can then accept the CTs on that account, change the email address and proceed as normal. Don't really see any need to involve the LWG. They would need to go through a similar process of contacting the mapper anyway I expect, so you might as well just get on with it. 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-talkhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Adopt a PD-Mapper ....... was Re: Refusing CT but declaring contributions as PD
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
