OpenStreetMap
As the elitist mailing list does not allow public answers, I am going to publish my answer here in the blog:
> > The contributor terms say "Subject to Section 3 and 4 below, You hereby
> > grant to OSMF a worldwide, royalty-free, blah blah blah".
> >
> > The one exception might be that OSMF choses the license under which data
> > is published (from the list under "one of the following..."), so
> > everyone else can *only* use the data under that license; whereas OSMF
> > could always use the data under *any* of the named licenses.
> >
> > Oh, and the other exception might be that OSMF can sue others for abuse
> > on your behalf. But again - is that a problem? Would you rather have the
> > sentence about suing for copyright violation removed from the CT, would
> > that be better?
> >
These terms are unacceptable for members who want to distribute their
contributions without any restrictions (public domain). Anybody who wants to
distribute HIS contributions without any restrictions (public domain) should
insist on three different wordings:
"Subject to Section 3 and 4 below, I hereby grant to ANYBODY a worldwide,
royalty-free, blah blah blah".
"only one of the following..." does not fit the personal intention to
distribute personal contributions without any restrictions (public domain)
"OSMF can sue others for abuse on your behalf" should be invalid for those
users who have clicked the Public domain button.
I suppose that roughly 100 contributors have declined because these
Contributor Terms do not enable a valid dedication into Public Domain.
Discussion
Comment from EdLoach on 6 June 2011 at 20:16
You can do anything you like with your own contributions. The CT only say what the project can do with your contributions to the project. So no changes needed.
Comment from chriscf on 6 June 2011 at 23:56
Ed is spot on. The Terms invole a licence grant, not a transfer. You retain whatever rights you would have over your contributions, OSMF could not ever prevent you from distributing your own contributions under any conditions you like - whether that be a PD-equivalent such as the WTFPL, or the "you-must-pay-me-£100-per-byte" licence (though I doubt you'd get many takers on that one). If 100 contributors have declined because they thought the CT do not enable them to waive all rights, then they're idiots. As with every time I call some group idiots on the diary, you can quote me on that.
Also, which elitist mailing list is this? Last I checked, all the ones that matter are open to everyone.
Comment from Marc Schütz on 7 June 2011 at 11:00
I think FK270673 is right at least about the "suing on your behalf" part. If you're making your contributions PD, you surely don't want the OSMF to sue someone for using your contributions.