[OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Progressing OSM to a new dataLicence regime

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

> Long term, we can avoid the ambiguity by making it clear that all data
> belongs to OSM, whoever that is (probably the foundation), then we can
> let the foundation change the license whenever they need to.

This is undesirable because it would lead to distrust ("Ah, look what
Fred's doing here, I am sure he aims at being elected as the
foundation chairman next term, then he'll pull in all his evil PD
friends and drop the viral elements of our license! We must stop this
sinister endeavour now...").

People would call for a myriad of checks and balances and democratic
processes in the foundation to make sure that bad things don't happen,
and this would bog the foundation down to the point where nothing can
be achieved.

Also, the option of easy license change in the future would make it
difficult for commercial users to rely on our data.

What we could do is grant the foundation the right to dual-license the
data, either globally or to specific (paying?) users. But the license
that we now choose should remain fixed.

Bye
Frederik
 
-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00.09' E008°23.33'