[OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data

Liz edodd at billiau.net
Wed Aug 4 22:25:54 BST 2010


On Thu, 5 Aug 2010, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Liz,
> 
> > Since 80n has mooted this deadline some time ago, and only now you
> > consider it, of course you think it is quite short.
> 
> 80n first mentioned this deadline on 14th July, i.e. at the time that
> was six weeks.
> 
> It was unclear to me what exactly the deadline was about; he wrote "if
> there isn't a clear majority by September 1st then I'd say the
> relicensing has failed" but a majority of whom, in what question?
> 
> Did anybody - you, 80n, anybody? - think that we'd somehow, in these six
> weeks, be able to email every contributor, and ask them to relicense
> their content, chase up those that don't answer, and consolidate the
> results? - Personally I didn't even think about that deadline becasue it
> seemed quite absurd.
> 
> Plus, I don't know if we need any kind of deadline at all.
> 
> We can simply decide to re-license, then ask everyone to agree, then
> disallow contributions from people who haven't agreed. All the time, the
> planet is still under CC-BY-SA. Then we evaluate the losses. Say we find
> that 20% of data has not been relicensed. Ok, we start working on
> replacing that data, using the work of people who are ok with ODbL.
> After a while, only 10% of "old" data is still there. We continue, with
> the planet still under CC-BY-SA. After another while, we have brought
> down the losses to 1%, or 0.1%, or whatever. At that time we throw out
> the rest and publish the planet under ODbL.
> 
> Who cares if that time is one year in the future? If it helps to keep
> our losses to a minimum - why not.
> 
> As you know we have many people who don't fear the license change, but
> they fear data loss incurred by people not agreeing. In theory, the LWG
> could even set an arbitrary limit (e.g. "we promise not to re-license
> the planet until global data loss is less than x%"). That should then
> bring all those people on board who fear data loss. Then we just carry
> on as I described above, slowly eliminating the "old" data by replacing
> it with re-surveyed "new" data until we achieve what we want.
> 
> Just a thought. Not necessarily bright. Might have its problems, might
> also work.
> 
> Bye
> Frederik

Frederick i compliment you on actually thinking instead of holding firm in a 
particular viewpoint.
I have not changed my mind, as you still will have changed the licence by 
stealth and creep.
As you realise, in my jurisdiction, CC-by-SA is a better licence than ODbL, as 
it has been well checked and has government use.
In other jurisdictions the matter is different.

A previous idea of yours was different licences for different areas, and this 
has not been fully explored.



More information about the legal-talk mailing list