<div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Matt Amos <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:matt@asklater.com">matt@asklater.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">Gervase Markham wrote:<br>
> On 12/12/09 16:33, Matt Amos wrote:<br>
>> and also that the Contents are effectively PD, but anyone downloading<br>
>> planet.osm is effectively downloading a database. so each individual<br>
>> Content item has a very liberal license, but when used in Substantial<br>
>> amounts is governed by the ODbL.<br>
><br>
> So if OSM accepts a contribution from a 3rd party "under the ODbL", what<br>
> is the licence of the individual data items? Anything they like? Even<br>
> something restrictive? Are we back to the position where we effectively<br>
> have to get the original owner of the database to sign the Contributor<br>
> Terms in order to take their "ODbLed" contribution?<br>
<br>
</div>yes, the contributor terms means that OSM wouldn't be able to accept<br>
such an ODbL contribution. imagining that we were accepting<br>
contributions under the ODbL, then it would be another point of<br>
difficulty that the Contents licenses would have to be compatible.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> One of the big points of share-alike licences is that you can, without<br>
> asking permission, incorporate other content under the same licence into<br>
> your content. The more we look, the more we seem to be discovering ways<br>
> that this isn't in fact true of the currently-proposed licensing scheme.<br>
> And if it's not, then it's not a suitable licence to switch to if<br>
> "preserve the share-alike" is one of the design goals - as we are told<br>
> it is.<br>
<br>
</div>there's really two parts to share-alike: 1) you can import other<br>
people's data, and 2) other people can import your data. (1) isn't true<br>
of the proposed scheme. basically, it's not possible to have both the<br>
ability to react in the future to the need to change the license and the<br>
ability to accept ODbL + permissive Contents contributions. as i've said<br>
several times; my opinion is that the former is more important. your<br>
opinion is clearly for the latter.<br>
<br>
we're not setting a precedent for this; FSF is already unable to take<br>
GPL-only contributions, since they require rights assignment. we aren't<br>
proposing rights assignment, but the effect on imports is the same.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> I'm entirely in favour of switching to a licence which is a) like<br>
> CC-BY-SA in share-alike, and b) is better suited for data. The LWG has<br>
> made a good case that the ODbL is b), but it seems increasingly<br>
> uncertain that it's actually a).<br>
<br>
</div>well, we've got half of (a); it's share-alike downstream, just not<br>
upstream ;-)<br></blockquote></div><br>Well, it's not really share-alike downstream either, is it. <br><br>If someone takes an ODbL licensed planet.osm and adds their own data to it then there are two reasons why we may not be able to have these modifications back:<br>
1) They can impose some incompatible license conditions on their added content.<br>2) They refuse to agree to the Contributor Terms<br><br>What attributes of share-alike are successfully implemented by ODbL+CT? Is it really a proper share-alike license in practice?<br>
<br>80n<br><br>
<br><br>