[OSM-legal-talk] Making OSM Public domain
Frederik Ramm
frederik at remote.org
Mon Oct 27 00:28:39 GMT 2008
Hi,
A Morris wrote:
> This is a textbook example of the pro-PD propaganda I mentioned.
Which I created on purpose to counter your textbook examples of pro-SA
propaganda. I really thought you were doing that on purpose (the usual
FUD stuff about evil people locking away data and so on), I didn't think
these were meant as a real input to our discussion, I thought you wanted
to illustrate what can go wrong when writing polls.
> * The number of users will be "much smaller"... Thats it? That's your
> concrete argument? It's hand-waving propaganda with no basis in fact,
> and with no evidence; in fact the number of users of Linux vs FreeBSD
> is strong evidence against your position.
Come on, we've been there. You make an useless comparison with software
by citing Linux and BSD, I'll ask you to point me to a GPL licensed web
server with more users than Apache. "In fact, this is a strong evidence
against your position!". (But at least we have lighttpd fighting for
proper Freedom on that front... oh noes! They're BSD also. We're doomed.)
> * You then assert that "legitimate users will be unable to use the
> project". Again, a specious argument, seeing as the new license is not
> yet written.
This is a fundamental thing and not something you can write a license to
solve, and something you could have thought of yourself if you had taken
time to read and think rather than just fire off textbook phrases. The
problem arises not from the particular wording of a license, but from
the basic concept of share-alike. Either you want to force people to
release proprietary data they combine with OSM, or you don't.
My pet example is this: Student writes thesis on public transport, gets
lots of data from local transport authority under the provision that it
is only used for academic purposes (maybe proprietary; maybe legally
protected because drivers' whereabouts can be derived from the data
etc.). Student wants to combine this with OSM data for his analyses. Now
EITHER the license allows this, but then it will also allow the
transport authority themselves to use the data without releasing stuff -
or it doesn't, which will then lead to our student calling TeleAtlas and
asking them for a free "academic" sample of their data he can use,
sending out the message: OSM is all nice and dandy but if you want to do
serious work, better call TeleAtlas.
Now depending on how hardcore you are, you'll say: Tough luck, the
student should use his time to talk the transport authority into
releasing the data under a license compatible with ours. You might even
say: Tough luck, so the student is not a legitimate user. Both of which
seem quite cynical to me.
If you're not that cynical and have a good idea to make the above
scenario work for the student in question without going against basic
share-alike, I suggest that you offer that idea in this forum or make it
known to those working hard to draft the new license (whomever you
believe them to be).
> I really don't want to respond to every silly little post regarding
> the PD/share-alike debate, but I feel that propaganda bordering on
> untruthfulness needs to be challenged.
It looked to me like your aim was rather to respond in kind.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frederik at remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
More information about the legal-talk
mailing list