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

[Rob Myers]

On 10/12/10 09:10, Simon Ward wrote:
>
> 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.

If Creative Commons (to take the current licence) or ODC (to take the 
next one) suddenly turn evil, are unable to react to changes in the law, 
or produce a licence that you don't like, OSM(F) should be able to react 
to that in more than a token way.

> I just said in another thread that I would be happier if the OKD was
> explicitly referenced.

I don't think the future OSM community should be limited by another 
party's definitions. They should be free to find their own.

> 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.

It's not "paranoia". It's a recognition that the task has been necessary 
once, has been very difficult even after only a few years of 
contributions, and may be necessary again after many more years.

> 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.

The upgrade clause means that another arbitrary licence can be 
substituted anyway. See what happened with the FDL and Wikipedia.

A good example of a very successful project that decided it was cleverer 
than the future is the Linux kernel. It can only be licenced under GPL 
2.0. This means that software patents, DRM, Tivoisation, SaaS, internet 
distribution and other challenges to the freedom to use software that 
have emerged since GPL 2 was written and are addressed in GPL 3 and AGPL 
3 still affect the Linux kernel.

Yes, an upgrade clause is (on balance) good, although some people regard 
that loss of control as immoral in itself. But that already removes the 
control of individuals over the licencing other individuals can use in 
the future. And OSM has already ended up with the wrong licence once.

- Rob.