[OSM-legal-talk] Attempt to clarify

[Gervase Markham]

Ian Sergeant wrote:
> There are some additional concerns with your option 2 (ODL) not working.
> 
> 1. It may "not work", in a way not intended.  

What way can you envisage it not working, other than moving in a PD 
direction?

> 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.

Why would we need to change the licence? If it were ineffective, we 
would either keep it in place anyway as a social signal, or use whatever 
mechanism everyone else was using to bypass it. There wouldn't be a need 
for a relicensing, or data loss.

> 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.

Again, if there's a loophole, we can use it too if we decide it's no 
longer worth having the licence.

Gerv