[OSM-legal-talk] Deconstructing the "loss of data" claim

Andy Robinson blackadderajr at googlemail.com
Tue Feb 19 23:01:16 GMT 2008


On 19/02/2008, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>    I am unhappy about the much-iterated claim that we would lose a lot
> of data if we were to go PD (or CC0, or a similar non-virulent
> license).
>
> Quite honestly, I think this claim is bordering on what you call
> "FUD" - fear, uncertainty, and disinformation.
>

It is possible that there has been more written about data loss on
license change than any other aspect, but that doesn't mean its being
used as the argument for one license over another.

The issue was quite simple. We need to have a license that better
protects the OSM data and clarifies how the data can be used so that
the project can effectively deliver what it set out to deliver. The
current proposal was and is considered to be the closest to the
existing license while giving these needed improvements so it was the
logical choice.

OSM never started out as a PD project so why would we think that it
would be better to recommend it go PD now? Perhaps there is room for a
mechanism that puts data into the PD if contributers wish to make
their data PD but I don't see why we would want to reinvent the
present OSM project as PD.

Cheers

Andy
-- 
Andy Robinson




More information about the legal-talk mailing list