On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Rob Myers <[email protected]> wrote: > On 09/23/2010 01:52 PM, Anthony wrote: >> >> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 4:12 AM, Rob Myers<[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On 09/20/2010 05:14 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: >>>> >>>> I'm asking about Clause 2: specifically, >>>> why does OSMF need special rights over contributors' data? >>> >>> OSM(F) needs to be able to place contributions under BY-SA now and later >>> under the ODbL. >> >> Why do they need to do this? > > So that the data(base) can be switched to ODbL. > >> Specifically, why can't the contributors >> do this themselves? > > They are agreeing to the change.
Your explanation makes no sense. My question is why do the contributors have to allow OSMF to license their contributions under BY-SA and ODbL (and DbCL, don't forget about DbCL). Why can't the contributors do that themselves? Yes, the contributors (at least, some of them) are agreeing to the change. But why is the change need to be implemented the way it is being implemented). >>> OSM(F) may also need to relicence the data again in future, as Clause 3 >>> indicates. Clause 2 makes this possible. >> >> I understand that explanation. But not the other one. > > From the point of view of two or five years ago, this is the future. Clause 3 allows OSMF to relicense the data in the future without getting permission in the future. To the extent "this is the future", that doesn't apply, because you are trying to get permission *now* for relicensing *now*. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
