[OSM-legal-talk] Progressing OSM to a new data Licence regime

[MJ Ray]

rob at robmyers.org wrote: [...]
> This is Parallel Distribution. We (the cc-licences mailing list)  
> discussed it during the CC 3.0 public review. My personal opinion is  
> that it is not a good idea because there is so much room for mischief  
> in it.

If you think it's a bad idea for another reason, then fine, but "room
for mischief" applies to almost all licences.  Ultimately, whether
work is Free and Open with a capital F O is how it's actually handled
in practice.

After all, with the FDL, there was enough "room for mischief" that a
GNU project declared its whole manual to be an invariant section and a
magazine that said its table of contents was an invariant section.
Those uses were clearly not what FDL's authors intended, but there
will always be someone who misinterprets or deliberately misuses a
licence and then the default licensing position is "no licence".

As long as Parallel Distribution as specified will stand up as a
requirement if challenged, that's not a problem in itself IMO - it
seems a good way to make DRM copies more expensive and more cumbersome
and so discourage it.

Hope that helps,
-- 
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/