[OSM-legal-talk] Deconstructing the "loss of data" claim
blackadderajr at googlemail.com
Tue Feb 19 23:35:09 GMT 2008
On 19/02/2008, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
> > The issue was quite simple. We need to have a license that better
> > protects the OSM data
> Do we? What's the threat? How has it been assessed?
I'm not aware of a threat being received but a number of individuals
and some legal based responses lead us to understand that the current
CC does little to protect data. Therefore naturally there was a desire
to improve the protection afforded by the license as part of any
> > and clarifies how the data can be used so that
> > the project can effectively deliver what it set out to deliver.
> It set out to deliver a free world map. The choice of license seemed
> ok at the time, but it wasn't central to the project. Well I wasn't
> around then but I am pretty damn sure that nobody said "oh well there
> are all these PD world maps but we need something that is proper
I'm not sure you can argue the the chosen license wasn't central to
the project. Steve created the project and picked the license. He had
his reasons for doing so at the time and we all signed up to
contribute to it on that basis.
Please don't write speculation as if you are quoting fact.
> > OSM never started out as a PD project so why would we think that it
> > would be better to recommend it go PD now?
> Perhaps: OSM started out as a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike
> project and Creative Commons now suggest that factual data should be
> licensed PD?
I think this point is covered in Richards original post and the Q&A
> > I don't see why we would want to reinvent the
> > present OSM project as PD.
> Well the people who have chosen the inital license had not even
> thought about database law and facts-are-free and the whole thing. We
> are now, for the first time in the project, thinking about these
> issues and trying to find a solution. It doesn't help to pick
> individual bits of our current licensing and claim that they are
> important pillars of the project and have been chosen after long
> and thorough consideration. This is the first time we actually have a
> community process going where we try to find the license that serves
> us best.
hm, most of what I'm reading on the matter is about what the user
thinks best, not what is perhaps in the best interests of the project.
> Or at least I thought we had.
More information about the legal-talk