[OSM-legal-talk] The OSM licence: where we are, where we're going

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

   it seems I was a bit sloppy with my post.

> Ignoring the fact that under US law, it's impossible for individuals
> to place copyrighted material into the public domain?

Well there's this sentence I've read a number of times which goes like
"... public domain ... where not possible, I grant everyone a
perpetual license to do whatever they want...". Generally I just say
"public domain" because I assume everybody understands what is meant
by that: Relinquishing control of what you have made, not requesting
to have a say in what is done with it.

Giving it away for free, if you will.

> >   cons - will lead to loss of data by people who do not want to
> >     support PD, and may have compatibility issues on the import
> >     side (e.g. cannot import data that mandates attribution)
> 
> Which would be all the AND data? All the MassGIS data?

Well, if there's anything in our database right now that requires
attribution where used, it should be removed immediately because we
cannot guarantee that. I don't see any MassGIS attribution here:

http://informationfreeway.org/?lat=42.35711492131644&lon=-71.05755752794222&zoom=17&layers=0000F0B0F

(Granted, I deviously selected the Mapnik layer but you get the
point.)

> A large number of the 'successes' that OSM has claimed have lain
> precisely in its licensing model,

A number of people I have spoken to at SOTM'07 said that AND would
very likely have given their data even if we had been PD. Which is
just speculation, but your statement quoted above is speculation as
well. And if even the Creative Commons people now suggest to their
followers that in some situations PD (with expected, but not
enforcable attribution, as Richard explained) might be best and they
create a nice wrapper and logo for the scheme, then I think it should
be possible to work with that and convince others to make data
available under that.

So, I don't see the large number of successes that stem precisely form
the licensing model as you claim!

> > CC -
> >   pros - no loss of data, copyleft "spirit" remains intact, world
> >     becomes better place, legal requirement to give stuff back to
> >     OSM
> 
> Er, CC? I didn't see Richard proposing the use of CC... 

The fact that the CC-BY-SA license we have today doesn't work is
widely accepted. I used the term "CC" to refer to the ODCD/ODCFI
tandem that Richard mentioned; this was stupid, I should have at least
used "SA" or "Copyleft"; this was the essence of what I meant.

> Are you sure you read the post? I'm assuming you're aware that
> you're telling the author of Potlatch -- one of the relatively few
> pieces of OSM software *released into the Public Domain* (so far as
> that is legally possible) -- that his/the foundation's attitude
> towards the data licensing debate is the wrong one?

No, I was just suggesting that it might actually be a good idea to
poll the community for whom the Foundation wants to do the best,
especially as a (non-representative!) poll at the SOTM'07 has shown
that a large majority seemed to favour PD.

> I'm perhaps reading something wrong. I'm clearly not a lawyer, but
> reading the license stuff that is linked to from Richard's post,
> it's clear to me that the license that the foundation is asking for
> feedback on pursuing is *very* different to the CC license, in a way
> that makes it very clear what types of activities are allowed that
> wasn't at all clear before.

Yes, and I fully agree that the ODCD/ODCFI tandem would be much better
than the unclear situation we have now. 

> Did you read the Open DB License? Your argument seems to not take
> into account the level of thought which has been put into the
> current verison of the license: I'm not sure if that's intentional,
> or if I'm just misreading your message. If the latter, I apologize,
> but if it's the former, or if you haven't read the license yet, I'd
> highly encourage you to be more specific about what things you feel
> the ODB License does not make clear -- because to my reading, it's
> pretty obvious.

I have read the license and I have not said that it is in any way
unclear; the only thing I said that it is very likely that with any
such (restrictive, as opposed to PD) license there will *always* be
cases deemed ok by the community (in a "why, yes of course that should
be allowed") but which are not allowed by the letter of the license.
That is not a fault of the ODCD/ODCFI licenses, but just a feature of
any kind of complex legal mesh you put up to achieve your goals.

> My position that copyleft is not important is only the position I
> take personally because there have thus far been no good licenses
> that enforce copyleft without unneccesarily preventing derivative
> works that are intended to be allowed.

Ah, yes, that's about what I meant with my 99%.

Even though the ODCD/ODCFI is much better than what we have now, I
would prefer a PD solution. My reasons include:

* PD is easy to understand. You don't have to read legalese to know
  what you may and may not do. The existing CC licenses have tried 
  very hard to be easy to understand and yet even most of OSM
  contributors don't get them. ODCD/ODCFI is none the better.

* Any license is only as good as your means and your will to enforce
  it. I think there are even jurisdictions where if you don't sue
  someone who infringes upon your license, you will basically lose the
  right to sue him (or others doing the same). I want to work for a
  free world map and not for feeding the OSMF legal dept.

* This is a very personal sentiment but to me, there's a world of 
  difference between giving something away with no conditions
  attached, and "giving away" stuff with lots of rules (I give you
  this but you must promise to ... and otherwise I won't give you 
  anything). The latter, to me, is really not "free" in any meaningful
  way.

I have said these things many many times on this list and I didn't
really want to say them again; the essence of my posting was just that
the Foundation should poll the members instead of going to great
lengths to find out what's best for the members without talking to
them.

Bye
Frederik

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