[Legal-general] question re. OSMF's attitude to hosting alternative licence servers

Iván Sánchez Ortega ivan at sanchezortega.es
Thu Jul 29 15:05:15 BST 2010

El día Thursday 29 July 2010 15:14:22, TimSC dijo:
> > The real problem is not OSMF resources, but the ability to grab the
> > attention of potential contributors.
> You seem to be implying that we need a significant number of users to
> make this worth while.

No, I'm not.

> > Now, supporting two datasets with different licenses, and having to
> > explain why to potential contributors? That's just nuts.
> This is actually the main objection I expected from OSMF. There is a
> real risk it would make things more confusing for users, if we handle
> this poorly.

No. Things will be more confusing for users, PERIOD. Now go read Yochai 
Benkler and became aware that a higher entry barrier is detrimental to the 

> But I am not proposing "equal billing" for an SA and PD license. Or even 
> equal support. 

Oh, so you want the OSMF to support both SA and PD and, when someone asks, 
say "yeah, we're mainly SA, but we have these spare servers with PD data, 
just to keep everyone happy". OSMF ends up confusing people and looking like 
it doesn't have a strategy, PD people end up looking like they use the 

Is this what you want to achieve?

> Given there is actually significant interest in PD, based on the doodle
> poll, [...]

I'll just play the "skewed poll" card and ignore the argument.

> it doesn't follow that OSMF should limit the alternatives, particularly 
> against the wishes of the OSM community.

See, on one hand, OSMF is a democratically run entity. If the community wants 
the OSMF to steer in some direction, people wanting so will step up for the 
board. Which is why I urge you to step up for board elections next year.

On the other hand, OSM is a do-ocracy. Which means, if people want PD, they'll 
set up PD servers. Have you seen what the USGS guys are doing?  This is why I 
urge you to step back from your e-mail client and start writing code and 
setting up servers.

> One issue that has not been raised is what is the future of the license
> beyond ODbL v1?

ODbL v2, obviously. And ODbL v3 after that.

> I am also anticipating SteveC entering this discussion.

SteveC has much better things to do right now.

> I wonder if anything can be added to [the license, the database and a way
> to edit it] without his support.


Steve didn't code Potlatch, nor Potlatch2.
Steve didn't code JOSM.
Steve didn't code the API 0.4, 0.5 nor 0.6.
Steve didn't wrote the CC license.

You don't need Steve, nor Steve's approval.

Now, seriously, step back from your e-mail client, and just frakking do stuff. 
Empty talk is just empty talk.

Iván Sánchez Ortega <ivan at sanchezortega.es>

Un ordenador no es una televisión ni un microondas: es una herramienta 

More information about the Legal-general mailing list