[OSM-legal-talk] Process for agreeing the new licence
peter.miller at itoworld.com
Sun Sep 28 10:06:54 BST 2008
> -----Original Message-----
> From: legal-talk-bounces at openstreetmap.org [mailto:legal-talk-
> bounces at openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Frederik Ramm
> Sent: 28 September 2008 09:04
> To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
> Subject: [Spam] Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A very brief brief for our new
> > However, I also don't understand how OSM can always insist on being
> > attributed as outlined on the wiki 'ODL-Database expressly requires that
> > credit is only given to the database, i.e. OpenStreetMap (4.2/4.3'.
> Sure, if
> > the main OSM DB is used then that is the effect of the example notice in
> > licence in 4.2, 'This DOCUMENT TYPE contains information from DATABASE
> > however a Derivative or Collective database may be called something else
> > therefore OSM will not be attributed.
> For the current license, people seem to assume that attribution is
> cascading, i.e. you have to mention where you got the data from, and
> where they got their data from, and so on - cf. my question a few weeks
> ago on this list.
> > Is this the main area of concern with my 'brief brief', if so we are
> > very well :) or are there any others that we should consider?
> Rest seemed ok for me but then again I didn't see much participation on
> this list in the past months so maybe everybody's out mapping.
I agree that participation is low on this list, possibly main of the 191
subscribers to legal-talk are listening but not posting. The basic message
to these people is speak up now if you are unhappy. Please don't sit back
now and then vote against it when we are done.
Fyi, I am intending to follow a reasonably formal strategy with regard to
Firstly to get a consensus on legal-talk (from anyone who wishes to
participate) on what the essence of the licence should be. This should be
reasonably straightforward, but I don't think it has been done to date. I
think we are getting there with that and I will post an updated 'brief
brief'. The basic message is that if you disagree then say so, because
otherwise it will be too late. The OSMF wants to get this licence out by
Xmas so we don't have a lot of time.
I then intend to build and discuss a set of use-cases that we want to be
covered. This is the next stage when the brief has been agreed and I will
introduce it on legal-talk.
When we are done with both of these on legal-talk I will then move the
discussion to talk and we will do it all again, but hopefully it will be
helped by having had the discussion on this list first.
By the time we are done with talk then hopefully a more mature draft of the
proposed licence will be available and we can move the discussion back to
legal-talk to validate the updated draft licence against the use-cases. I
think that this may be the main part of the job. As well as the licence I
think it will probably be useful to produce a 'dummy's guide' to the licence
that explains in normal simple English why each paragraph is there. We are
likely to need a few iterations of the draft at this point.
When we are done with that we will get external potential end-users to
validate against appropriate use-cases.
When we are done with that I think we will be ready to recommend the licence
on the main talk list. When we get agreement there we I suggest that we then
recommend it to top prolific contributors around the world and also with
providers of bulk-imports, in particular ensuring that the licence works
with major supplies, including yahoo, TIGER and AND. Finally we put the
email out to all 20,000 users.
Are people happy with this process? Personally I think that if we skip any
one of the above steps these we will end up with an argument and failure to
get it through.
I hope that this is compatible with what the OSMF are doing, however
following the best traditions of OSM, I am seeing a gap and just getting on
with doing what seems to need to be done.
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
More information about the legal-talk