[OSM-legal-talk] multiple editor touches to objects, transition plan concern

[TimSC]

Hi all,

Here is a personal concern I have with the ODbL implementation plan. I 
was going to post it on the wiki, but I thought I want to have comments 
from interested parties before I post it. Extra marks for linking to 
pre-existing material, because we don't want to rehash the same stuff. :)

After Monday, comments to the wiki please, unless this concern has been 
well and truly put to rest.

TimSC

=== Impact on Transitioning to ODbL If Significant Minority "No" Vote ===

A concern with the implementation plan, not ODbL. As I see it, there are 
two separate issues:

* Is OBdL acceptable to each contributor? Assume for now this is a 
majority "yes".
* Should we transition OSM to ODbL, considering the level of support for 
point one?

I foresee several scenarios:

* Massive support vote "yes" for the ODbL license. In this case, the 
impact is minimal.
* Majority support "no".
* A narrow majority "yes" for the ODbL license. This is the option that 
worries me.

The implementation plan is rather vague on how we will manage the narrow 
"yes" situation. The implementation plan does have mitigation for "no" 
contributors which is to "attempting to reach out to any contributors 
who have not relicensed and trying to understand their concerns." For 
data that has been touched by multiple editors, the "Open Data 
License/Closed Issues" states "The original data will have to be 
removed, plus any later versions of the same element, but it is not 
necessary to remove nearby or adjoining elements." [1] This is probably 
a legally closed issue but still open in terms of implementation. (Three 
options are specified in the "backup plan" but I assume them to be 
unofficial at this stage.)

Now assume that each node and way is examined and transitioned to ODbL, 
on condition that it's chain of editors that accept the ODbL. I will 
ignore the import of external databases for my crude analysis. If we 
have 51% vote "yes", then for a way with two authors it has 26% chance 
of being transitioned. For three independent editors, 13% of ways will 
be transitioned. And given that ways depends on nodes and relations 
depend on ways, this loss can cascade upward to prevent higher levels of 
data being transitioned (what is the use of a way or relation if all the 
nodes are lost?). Conclusion, if there is a narrow "yes" vote, areas 
with many active editors will be decimated. This loss of data will be 
extremely de-motivating to the mapping community. Note to self: someone 
needs to do this analysis properly on the database history.

If we hypothetically accept the need to move from CC-BY-SA, we do not 
want to pass by a mere majority to another license as this would do 
unacceptable damage to the live database (and therefore damage the 
community). And we can't say the mitigation is suitable at this stage, 
as we don't know the level of ODbL support.

Points that need to be addressed (apologies if any have been addressed. 
please link to solution):

* Amend the implementation plan for database migration that goes beyond 
mitigation and really addresses how ways, nodes and relations will be 
dealt with. (Not just in the backup plan. Present it in the voting 
proposal.)

* Conduct analysis for how much loss of data in ODbL transition there 
will be under different scenarios.

* Not to consider a narrow majority vote as a mandate to transition OSM, 
as a close "yes" vote would be disastrous to the live database and the 
OSM community. Have a separate vote on the overall project transition, 
as we need to know the level of support for ODbL before we can make an 
informed decision to migrate. Have a plan B in case of a narrow "yes" 
vote, including further modifications to the license to improve 
community "buy in". Be prepared to address concerns, as the level of 
interest in the license is likely to increase.

* Assess levels of support beyond just ODbL and CC-BY-SA. (Public domain 
forever!)

* Or we can just take the hit of ODbL transition and wait for the 
community to recover (assuming loss of data on ODbL transition is a 
de-motivation factor).

I know people call for the big license debate to be resolved quickly 
(and I second that) but we can't fall at the implementation stage.

[1]  
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Closed_Issues#Features_touched_by_multiple_contributors.2C_not_all_of_whom_sign_up_to_new_terms