[OSM-legal-talk] Attempt to clarify

[Gervase Markham]

We have two options, one of which has two outcomes.

Option 1: Change to PD.

Option 2a): Change to ODL. Find we can't enforce share-alike, and OSM 
data can be converted to PD-equivalent by some particular laundering 
process or in some particular jurisdiction. OSM shrugs shoulders, says 
"Oh, well", goes through the process with the master copy and then this 
is equivalent to Option 1.

Option 2b): Change to ODL. Find we can enforce share-alike, either by 
legal pressure, by social pressure based on its clear statement of 
expectations, or both.


People are objecting to Option 2 because it might not work, and 
proposing Option 1 instead. But such objections are irrelevant because 
if it doesn't work, then we have Option 1 anyway. So if they are right, 
they get what they want.

I might therefore conclude (and stop me if my logic is faulty) that the 
only reason for someone to propose Option 1 over Option 2 on the basis 
of "it won't work" is because they actually have a principled objection 
to the share-alike part of Option 2, and are using "it won't work" as an 
excuse.

Fair?

Gerv