Talk:Open Data License/Bulk Import Support Page
"We hope organisations donating data will also use them but can make alterations in specific cases provided that the general spirit it kept"
- Is there any more detail about these special contributor agreements? Who would get to agree to these on the side of OSMF? How far does the "general spirit" reach? Would a contributor terms with the relicensing clause that allows to move to an arbitrary free and open license, i.e. including Public Domain, dropped be considered as "the general spirit kept"?
"...upgrade ... license ..."
- Personally, I would look to replace the use of "upgrade" when referring to the license. Anyone who has bought software or hardware knows upgrade is synonymous with "pay me more money" or in our case "give me more of your stuff", whereas the broad basic premise is that transition from CC-BY-SA to oDBL should be fairly neutral for third-party sources and imagery providers. The upgrade is essentially for downstream users of OSM data. This may be a benefit for these third-parties, but I would separate this from the key point of the letter: "please re-license your data under these new terms", and stress that these terms are essentially neutral. The obvious replacement is "change", but there maybe something better. SK53 09:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't see why ODbL is mentioned at all. The Contributor Terms allow relicensing to another free open license at any time (with community approval). I think the wording of the template letters is not very clear in this respect. --Bk 09:46, 14 August 2010 (BST)