[OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources

[Simon Ward]

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 08:48:47AM +0000, Rob Myers wrote:
> On 10/12/10 02:17, Simon Ward wrote:
> >If there’s any ambiguity, I’d rather remove as much of it as possible.
> >This includes being precise about the possible licences, especially as
> >“free” or “open” isn’t to my knowledge legally defined.
> 
> But we don't know the possible licence. It may not yet exist.
> 
> And we don't know why the change might occur.
> 
> So we don't want to tie people's hands.

If the change is so different that it is not covered in an explicit list
of licences *and* their upgrades that were agreed to by contributors,
then actually, yes, I want to tie people’s hands from making such a
change.  It should be substantially harder, not necessarily impossible,
and I think that means getting agreement from contributors again.

> We do want to explain the principle: which is that the licence
> should be Free.

I just said in another thread that I would be happier if the OKD was
explicitly referenced.  Well, I would be, but in light of what I have
just written above, I’m still very much of the opinion that the
future-licence-oh-no-we-don’t-want-to-go-through-this-again-paranoia
bit isn’t necessary in the CTs.

> They empower "the people" to be able to react to future circumstance
> in more than just a token or piecemeal way.

ODbL has an upgrade clause.  We think it’s going to be suitable for the
data for a while, but if necessary it can evolve.  We had the
opportunity to feed back on the ODbL, and my $deity did we by the
masses, and it is likely we will do for future revisions.  We have a say
in how it can evolve.  The CTs just want to leave it completely open.

Simon
-- 
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall