Contributor terms are just TODO

[matkoniecz]

Bug description At stage https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/user/terms there is display mentioning that OHM has failed so far to setup contributor terms

Repro Steps

1. Go to https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/#map=13/52.6634/19.3213&layers=O&date=1850&daterange=1800,2021
2. Click on "Sign Up" in the top right
3. go through sign up process

Screenshots & URL If applicable, please add a screenshot that includes the URL of the page. In addition, please add a text URL link to the page, separate from the image so the reviewer can link directly to the problem.

https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/user/terms

[jeffreyameyer]

Of note, I believe these will need to be translated to French and Italian, as well.

Drafting underway here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1H5NTUljWQxZekSBPOAFEaIspdIU5pHzRTOBelUKvVZg/edit#

[matkoniecz]

Of note, I believe these will need to be translated to French and Italian, as well.

Dropping that functionality likely also would be fine. Though I see

For legal reasons, this must be in French and Italian as well as English.

and I am not a lawyer

[danrademacher]

I just did a review of the license, and the big things that stand out to me are:

1. We need an OHM contributors wiki page to allow for listing of contributors per Term 4.
2. The license as adapted from OSM not surprisingly doesn't mention CC0 data. Those would be covered by object-level tagging in item 3, but if we want to encourage use of CC0, then I think it would be good to present examples of CC0. I added a suggestion to that effect.
3. I deleted the mention of OSMF and its voting members, since OHM does not have such a formal body or process.

If we can resolve those comments, this seems like something we could move into production soon.

[danrademacher]

One more thought on license and CC0 -- what is our default assumption for license if none is specified at the object level? I know we prefer CC0. Does that mean we assume it as the default?

[jeffreyameyer]

1. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OHM_Contributors (added to the wiki)
2. Added some comments in the doc - please review @danrademacher @rwelty1889
3. Excellent

We should probably include the language about the default assumption of public domain unless otherwise asserted by an explicit 'license=*' tag as part of the signup flow.

[danrademacher]

Your changes look OK to me. I don't have edit rights on that Gdoc, so I can't just accept them -- which is fine so we can get Richard's take as well.

[rwelty1889]

this looks good to me. future tweaking is inevitable, of course. nothing is every really finished.

[jeffreyameyer]

@danrademacher @rwelty1889 - edit privs added - mea culpa!!

If you're both good... let's post.

[jeffreyameyer]

@danrademacher.... looks like we were talking about #367 back here...

[danrademacher]

Ah I see and you approved this for posting a long time ago!

[jeffreyameyer]

Let's hold off on pushing this one out until we hear back from OSMF, and I also have some other questions related to CC0 and public domain marks.

On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 2:36 PM Dan Rademacher @.***> wrote:

Ah I see and you approved this for posting a long time ago!

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/OpenHistoricalMap/issues/issues/255#issuecomment-1132230380, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AALM4ESNE2N4PWAKCROBD6DVK2X7RANCNFSM46YUPVJQ . You are receiving this because you were assigned.Message ID: @.***>

-- Jeff Meyer 206-676-2347 osm: Open Historical Map (OHM) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Historical_Map / my OSM user page http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/jeffmeyer t: @OpenHistMap

[jeffreyameyer]

I've heard back & there are no major issues right now, so let's get ready to close this out, along with #367.

[danrademacher]

These are now live on production