[OSM-legal-talk] Attempt to clarify

[Ian Sergeant]

Gerv wrote on 21/02/2008 07:51:21 AM AEST:

> 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.

There are some additional concerns with your option 2 (ODL) not working.

1. It may "not work", in a way not intended.  That is, as the law becomes
settled in various jurisdictions, it may become necessary to review the
licence again in a relatively short timeframe.  This may trigger yet
another data-loss event, as people are being tracked down to agree once
more to a licence change.  Each of these events are harmful to the project,
and we should try and avoid them whereever it is possible to do so.

2. If the licence doesn't work it will have no legal effect on people
wanting to avoid the SA provisions.  However, it will still impose a
barrier of sorts on people wanting to use the OSM data for new and
innovative purposes.  Making them get legal opinions, interpreting licences
of a style for which limited precedents exist.

If we go PD, after the dust settles, the OSM data will be free for all to
use, and this will be perfectly clear to all.  People will still contribute
to OSM.  And, we could shut down the legal-talk mailing list, and focus on
the other tasks that have something to do with geodata.

Has to be a good thing.

Ian.
--
Ian Sergeant, LLB, BSc, MSc(Hons)