[OSM-legal-talk] License Telephone Debate

[80n]

On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 1:16 AM, Russ Nelson <russ at cloudmade.com> wrote:

>
> On Mar 15, 2009, at 8:33 PM, Simon Ward wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 08:26:14PM -0400, Russ Nelson wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mar 15, 2009, at 6:00 PM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> >>> why are we bothering with switching OSM to 1.0 at all?
> >>> Why not just wait for the 1.1 fixed version?
> >>
> >> 1) Because ODbL 1.0 is better than  C-By-SA
> >
> > So far that is one thing that is subject to debate.
>
> You're changing the subject.  Gerv was wondering why we would switch
> to a license we know isn't perfect.  The answer is : because it's
> better.  OBVIOUSLY if it's not better, we wouldn't switch to it.
> >
> >> 2) Because it's not clear that we'll understand ODbL any time soon
> >> well enough to fix any problems.
> >
> > If we don’t understand it we shouldn’t use it.
>
>
> We didn't understand the negative aspects of the CC-By-SA, but we used
> *it*.  Are you saying that OSM shouldn't have been licensed at all,
> because at the time the licensing decision was made, people didn't
> understand exactly how it would work?


Are arguing that we should then make the same mistake twice?

ODbL is more complex than CC-BY-SA in many way (copyright *and* database
rights *and* contract law) and it is completely untested.

Can you explain why you think the risks justify your haste?

80n
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20090316/9feb5c8b/attachment.html>