[OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
zerebubuth at gmail.com
Sun Dec 6 06:00:22 GMT 2009
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:37 AM, Stefan de Konink <stefan at konink.de> wrote:
> Matt Amos schreef:
>> we're talking about moving to another
>> license with very similar requirements, but a different
>> implementation, and that's not "open" and "free" anymore? it would
>> really help me if i could understand your position.
> Its honestly terribly simple. We get into a discussion over moving from
> a widely used `GPL2.0' like license that works for everyone, and best of
> all is compatible with everyone.
it does neither of the above. imagine a situation in which source code
were considered not to generate copyrights. any project licensed under
"GPL2.0" would lose protection. this is the situation we're in:
copyright very probably doesn't apply to our database, yet the license
we're using is based entirely on copyright.
also, CC BY-SA isn't compatible with everyone. it's compatible with
PD, attribution-only and itself. the exact same is true of ODbL.
> Some folks here think that BSD style should be our target.
indeed. but wouldn't it be better to find a license which works first,
then discuss what an even better license might be?
> Now the stearing committee thinks that for better protection we should
> go for OSI-APPROVED-LICENSE-X; that nobody is compatible with yet and
> worse. If we were Linux, we would have to remove our cool exotic network
> card drivers just to facilitate this move. And worst of all, all the
> nice vendors we were just talking with that were moved to going open are
> now bound to a contract... that sounds so... formal?
well, such is the nature of legal documents :-(
although, maybe it's familiarity talking, but i find ODbL less formal
and easier to read than CC BY-SA's legal code.
> Until anyone can guarantee that every bit of CC-BY-SA could be used
> without problems in the new framework; I'm a skeptic. And basically
> think about the deletionism in Wikipedia. Or wasting capital in real life.
i'm afraid i can't dispel your skepticism, then. it's possible we
could just keep all the old CC BY-SA data, since the license governing
it doesn't work, but i think this would be too radical a step for the
OSMF board ;-)
our choices are basically the following:
1) continue to use a license which legal experts seem to agree doesn't
work for us.
2) move to a new license.
option (2) will likely mean that some data is lost and i don't think
option (1) is what people really want. which do you prefer?
More information about the talk