On 13 December 2011 21:25, john whelan <jwhelan0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The intentions don't matter here, its to be able to defend the new > licensing / copyright in court you need to show all the content has come > from people who have accepted the new license. > It will only come to court if someone sues, and in the context of this re-licensing discussion, the only person who would do that is someone who has not accepted the new terms, and objects to their data being retained. My view is that a reasonable approach would be to assume that non-contactable mappers actually want their data to be used, but if they complain and say that this is not the case, delete it then....so it would never go to court. But I think it is a defensible position anyway - "xxx complained that we retained his data, so we have done what he wanted and deleted it...". Anyway, that is enough of legal stuff for me, but wanted to share what I think is a reasonable alternative approach to dealing with this issue, rather than re-mapping things that people may not actually want deleting in the first place. Graham. > -- Graham Jones Hartlepool, UK.
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
