On 08/04/11 10:46, John Smith wrote:
> On 8 April 2011 07:30, {withheld} <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Very naughty thought. I wonder what the reaction would be to a simple,
>> formal request to OSMF to re-grant you your rights to OSM data along the
>> same alignments on the basis OSM is backing up an effective copy of your
>> lost data?
>
> That isn't needed since at no point under the new or old CT do you
> sign your copyright away, previously/currently for some you agreed to
> allow OSM-F to publish your work under cc-by-sa, and possibly in
> future you agree to allow OSM-F to be able to license a copy of your
> data as they see fit. In both cases you still own the copyright, but
> of course in future you have to deal with more than just copyright and
> so that would become a lot less clear if you could do what you want
> with your own submissions if you attempt to extract them from the
> database.
Agreed - and thanks for stating the point I had intended so clearly.
The naughty aspect springs from my awkward attempt to imply the FUD
(fear/uncertainty/doubt) campaign could possibly be played two ways.
That is not to say I seriously think such an approach would be
acknowledged; let alone honoured.
Reminder: this particular sub-thread was attempting to address the
problems of a user who wishes to recover as best they can their own
original survey traces lost as a result of overly-trusting OSM-F to do
the right and honourable thing by their volunteer community.
Nearly choked on that. Wonder why?
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
