On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 14:32, Matt Amos <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason > <[email protected]> wrote: >> So my question is: >> >> 1. The closed issue I referred to contains the text "OSMF counsel >> does not believe" on something that seems to have fundamental >> significance to how the transition will be performed. Specifically the >> question of (addressed in my December 2008 mail) how we determine >> whether ODbL licensed works are derived from things still under the >> CC-BY-SA in February. >> >> The OSMF counsel seems to suggest that we only have to worry about >> this on a per-object basis, i.e. if there are some CC-BY-SA-only edits >> in the history of a given node/way/relation but I'd have thought we'd >> also have to worry about the case where someone has traced hundreds of >> amenity=* nodes from the layout of what's now a CC-BY-SA-only road >> network. But OSMF counsel thinks it's "not necessary to remove nearby >> or adjoining elements". >> >> I know the OSMF contacted outside legal counsel to comment on the ODbL >> itself but has it solicited a second pair of eyes on these open/closed >> issues? It would be interesting to know whether other lawyers take >> such a narrow view of what constitutes a derived work. > > it would be interesting, and OSMF have contacted other lawyers for > their opinion on other matters, but we only had one response. this > doesn't fill me with confidence that if we asked for legal advice we > would have many responses. on the other hand, OSMF counsel is a good > lawyer, and i would expect him to know what he's talking about. > > if you know any lawyers who would be willing to give legal advice > pro-bono, LWG would be very happy to hear about it.
I've contacted Wikimedia legal about this. Since we'll be using OSM data this is a concern for Wikimedia. We'll see if they're interested in reviewing it. >> 2. Is anyone working on the technical side of the CC-BY-SA-only data >> removal, e.g. filtering the planet to throw out objects which have >> CC-BY-SA-only data in their history? I haven't seen anything on dev@ >> about this or on the wiki. What's the plan? > > yes. the plan (subject to change based on technical feasibility, of > course) is here: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Backup_Plan#Marking_elements_.22OK.22 > > the key is that there must be an uninterrupted chain of ODbL-licensed > elements from the first version of the element, followed by a > referential integrity cleanup. at this point it's not clear that the > relicensing will go ahead, but if it does you'll see more discussion > of this on d...@. Cool. I'll stay posted. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
