[OSM-legal-talk] ODBL enforcement: contract law and remedies

[Matt Amos]

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Ed Avis <eda at waniasset.com> wrote:
> Remember, though, that there are huge transaction costs associated with any
> licence switch.  Even if you agree that CC-BY-SA is less than ideal, it might
> be better than deleting big chunks out of the database and alienating parts
> of the contributor base.  It might also undermine expectations of the
> project's stability.  After all if we go through one big data deletion
> and relicensing, what's to stop it happening again later?

CC BY-SA is certainly less than ideal - it doesn't protect those
copyleft principles in large parts of the world.

there has been some FUD about these "deletions" of data. let me say it
here: no data will be deleted. if the re-licensing goes ahead then all
of the data that everyone has contributed would be made available
through dumps. we could not retrospectively re-license old planet
files and dumps, so these would continue to be available. the
CC-licensed data would not be deleted. but, of course, it couldn't
appear in the ODbL-licensed dumps.

>>PD is easy to understand, provides maximum usefulness
>>of our data in all possible circumstances, and requires absolutely zero
>>man-hours of work tracking down "violators"; creates no community
>>friction because over-eager license vigilantes have to be reined in;
>>poses no risk of seducing OSMF to spend lots of money on lawyers; allows
>>us to concentrate on or core competencies.
>
> Agreed.  There is certainly a risk of the project being captured by lawyers
> or, worse, overenthusiastic amateurs, and getting sidetracked into enforcing
> rights rather than forwarding its goal of free map data.  That is one reason
> why I think a simpler, less armed-to-the-teeth licence may in the end be
> a good thing.

agreed. we at the LWG have been working very hard to produce the
license that we think the majority of OSM contributors want. a large
amount of previous discussion on this and the talk MLs has suggested
that share-alike is a much-requested feature*, so we've been working
to that goal as best we can. your suggestion that we're
overenthusiastic amateurs, sidetracking the project is deeply
insulting.

let's say, for a moment, that CC BY-SA definitely doesn't work and
isn't an option. what would you do? if you'd move to a new license,
which license?

cheers,

matt

*: it may be that it's only requested by the vociferous minority, but
until someone does a rigorous poll of a significant portion of the OSM
contributors, it's the only evidence we have.