[OSM-legal-talk] CC Attribution Share Alike License with OSMF exception

[Sunburned Surveyor]

Joseph wrote: "If we go with your proposal, the OSM foundation could
authorise future license changes if we find more problems with our new
license. I like that idea. Unfortunately, it gives the foundation a
lot more work to do."

I assure everyone the license will need to be changed again at some
point in the future. The legal system is in a constant state of
evolution and you never know how new technology will change the game.

I think it would be a great idea to contributors assign OSM the
ability to relicense OSM data as long as that decision follows a basic
set of principles.

The Sunburned Surveyor

On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 5:35 PM, Joseph Gentle <josephg at gmail.com> wrote:
> Its a compromise; a compromise which I think the purists on this list (most
> of us) will disagree with.
>
> It does seem like a good way for the share-alike supporters to champion free
> software while at the same time making sure their 'free' contributions never
> end up in the hands of those evil big business. It solves my problem (2)
> from my earlier email; that there are legitimate uses for the data which our
> current license blocks due to litigation. The situation at the moment is
> that your freedoms regarding the maps are more controlled by how afraid you
> are of litigation than by what you want to do with the maps.
>
> No matter how we change the licensing situation, it will require a mail out
> to all members. Some contributors will have changed their email addresses.
> Some contributors won't read the email, and some contributors won't agree
> with the changes. We'll lose data. When that happens, there'll be mirrors of
> the old data before the change (for users of our maps, the fine points of
> the license don't matter as much as map data quality). Its all ugly; and we
> want to only do it once.
>
> I guess we should optimise for:
> a) Never having to lose data like that again
> b) Making a proposal that as many members as possible will agree with
>
> If we go with your proposal, the OSM foundation could authorise future
> license changes if we find more problems with our new license. I like that
> idea. Unfortunately, it gives the foundation a lot more work to do.
>
> -J
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 9:44 AM, Brian Quinion
> <openstreetmap at brian.quinion.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >> OK, so either not OSMF (but a group setup for the purpose) or OSMF
>> >> with better protections for who can be a board member.  How about a
>> >> group made up of interested parties with a minimum amount of data
>> >> submitted to OSM... :-)
>>
>> > See, you're starting to walk the path towards non-freedom already.
>> > You're starting to talk of criteria, of restrictions, of authority.
>>
>> Ah, but since I'm only suggesting adding to CC-by-SA not replacing it
>> it can't make the freedom situation any worse :-)
>>
>> > BUT to get the more paranoid people among us to accept such a body with
>> > these rights, you will have to set up a huge and complicated process
>> > with checks and balances and positions of power and well-defined
>> > decision making processes and all - a real ugly beast if you ask me.
>>
>> Yes, from the responses so far I guess that is exactly what would
>> happen.  But on the other hand that is exactly what we seem to have at
>> the moment - a bureaucratic mess.
>>
>> I suppose my feeling is that a group with the ability to grant waivers
>> makes the project 'fail safe' since the worst that happens is that the
>> data gets given away.  With the current situation we could end up in a
>> situation where people couldn't use it at all. Indeed I think we have
>> already reached that point - just look at all the discussion about how
>> we go about changing the license at all, we are tying ourselves in
>> legal knots.
>>
>> Yes, someone could come in and find a loop hole, but it would be
>> public, it would be messy and it would be bad publicity for whoever
>> did it and I'd say the benefits outweigh the risks.
>>
>> > "Unhappy with something? Just submit it, in written form, with three
>> > copies, to our under-secretary for member queries, and it might just get
>> > on the agenda for next year's AGM..."
>> > I am not a control freak. I think formal decisions, votes, authority and
>> > all that should be avoided wherever possible. As long as we can manage
>> > with our "do-ocracy", let us do that.
>>
>> But there is always CC-By-SA so nothing is lost... unless you think it
>> is possible to get everyone to move over to PD?  otherwise I think we
>> need a middle route because there will always be special cases and the
>> project as a whole needs a way to deal with them because at the moment
>> it clearly does not.  A new license (however carefully written) is
>> unlikely to solve that!
>>
>> --
>>  Brian
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> legal-talk mailing list
>> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
>