[OSM-legal-talk] License Change Status?
Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)
ajrlists at googlemail.com
Tue Jul 1 15:24:20 BST 2008
Frederik,
Things have not stood still although we are currently reliant on the good
will of others to help the process along. The proposed Open Database
Licence, now called the ODbL licence for short, was updated/improved by
Jordan a few weeks ago. The OSMF board have reviewed it and are very happy
but we wanted to get another legal view before we put it out for further OSM
discussion. Steve had been offered some time with a highly qualified lawyer
and currently we are waiting for the two to meet up. The process has been a
little delayed due to the unfortunate late cancellation of meetings.
As soon as Steve reports back we will be in a position to decide whether
it's ready to take further or if it needs further work. Until this has been
done there are no plans to discuss the later steps in the required process.
Cheers
Andy
>-----Original Message-----
>From: legal-talk-bounces at openstreetmap.org [mailto:legal-talk-
>bounces at openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Frederik Ramm
>Sent: 01 July 2008 2:44 PM
>To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
>Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] License Change Status?
>
>Hi,
>
> what's the status of the license change plans? Have they run
>aground - I had been told a few months ago that a new release of
>Jordan's draft would be imminent. What's more, the license itself -
>about which we'll hear at SOTM - is only one little piece of the
>puzzle. The whole transition process - which, correct me if I'm
>wrong, is not scheduled to be discussed at SOTM at all - is surely as
>difficult. Will we attempt to employ legal tricks to re-license work
>of people who don't respond to our license change spam email? What
>exactly will we delete if people say "no" to the license change? (It
>has been said that even the pub on the street corner may be a work
>derived from the road data... and vice versa.) How many people have
>to say "no" for us to stop the change altogether? What would we do
>then, stick with CC-BY-SA and hope nobody notices? After a license
>change, would we keep a "parallel universe" a.k.a. "fork" of OSM
>holding the old, not-relicensed data until the wounds in the new data
>set have healed?
>
>Is it possible that this whole transition process and the associated
>questions are such a delicate matter that everybody prefers not to
>think about it, much less talk about it? That would be very well
>understandable but at the same time dangerous. It seems clear to me
>that the current license works only as long as people don't look
>closely.
>
>Need I say that, had we decided to simply go PD when last year's SOTM
>panel found that there was broad support for it, we would now be one
>happy project with all the legal hassles out of the way? It's not to
>late to see the light!
>
>Bye
>Frederik
>
>--
>Frederik Ramm ## eMail frederik at remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>legal-talk mailing list
>legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG.
>Version: 8.0.101 / Virus Database: 270.4.3/1527 - Release Date: 30/06/2008
>6:07 PM
More information about the legal-talk
mailing list