----- Original Message -----
From: "Simon Biber" <[email protected]>
To: "David Groom" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 12:33 AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begins
On 13/08/2010, at 8:17, "David Groom" <[email protected]> wrote:
Firstly, as you say "sometime in the past". So Yahoo gave permission
when the project has a CC-BY-SA licence. The contributor terms allow the
switching of the licence to a non-CC-BY-SA licence. So how can I
possibly say that on the basis of an agreement made some time ago Yahoo
now agree to contributors agreeing to the CT terms.
Yahoo disclaimed copyright in information that is derived from their
aerial photography. So, this "permission" is not limited to any particular
license.
From http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Yahoo
"The agreement allows us to derive our vector-based map data from the aerial
photos owned by Yahoo! and to release these derived works with our open
content license " - and that licence is currently CC-BY-SA.
and from later in that page "We don't have a written agreement explaining
exactly what is permitted. It seems to be more a case of agreeing an
interpretation of their Terms of Use. "
So if there is some documentation which shows that Yahoo agrees to users
tracing data which is subject to the CT terms then please could someone put
a reference to it on the wiki, this would be quite helpful in allevaiting
some of my concerns
Secondly, the real point I was making was that the CT terms state "...
You represent and warrant that You have explicit permission from the
rights holder to submit the Contents and grant the license below ...".
And I simply do not have explicit permission. I don't have explicit
permission because:
a) The permission was not made to me, but to a more general body of
people; so the permission I have is IMPLICIT.
That is not the correct meaning of "explicit". Explicit means "expressed",
Not just "expressed", but "precisely and clearly expressed" [1]
by means of a statement, whether verbally or in writing. As opposed to
implicit, which means assumed in the absence of a statement.
If the rights holder makes a statement that permission is granted to "any
person", then it _is_ explicit permission for you, since you are a member
of the set "any person".
Explicit does not mean specific.
139 Moby Thesaurus words for "explicit": .....specific .....[2]
David
[1] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=explicit
[2] http://www.dictionary.net/explicit
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
