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

[Rob Myers]

On 11/12/10 03:26, Simon Ward wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 09:57:38AM +0000, Rob Myers wrote:
>> On 10/12/10 09:10, Simon Ward wrote:
>>>
>
> Fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

Meme.

>>> 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.
>
> How do you find the OKD limiting?

I don't.

> To me the OKD fits with the spirit of OSM.  I don’t think it’s
> sufficient by itself, but I can’t win everything.

You ask me how I find it limiting, then you say you'd rather not be 
limited by it?

> I think it is something reasonable to refer to, and for
> those actually supporting open data is a very good definition.  OSM

I agree.

> doesn’t have t to stick to the OKD, but I think you are wrong in
> dismissing it entirely.

You are wrong in thinking that I am "dismissing it entirely".

> I’d like a common standard for open data.  If
> the OKD isn’t suitable, please feel free to explain why you think that.

If it was a good idea for OSM(F) to use an external definition, choosing 
the OKD would be a no-brainer.

To spell it out: I am a strong supporter of the OKF and I think the OKD 
is excellent. This is an independent issue from whether I think the 
OSM(F) should adopt any external definition of free or open data.

>>> 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.
>
> May be.

And OSM isn't the only major free/open project that has had to be 
relicenced.

>> The upgrade clause means that another arbitrary licence can be
>> substituted anyway. See what happened with the FDL and Wikipedia.
>
> I agree to the upgrade clause in the ODbL. I do not agree to the broad
> “free and open licence” of the CTs.

The reason I mention Wikipedia is that it shows that is not sufficient 
to prevent relicencing.

>> 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.
>
> I don’t see how that affects this.

You don't see how an actual example of licence lock-in having 
detrimental effects on a project's users is relevant to a discussion of 
licence lock-in?

> The kernel developers (rather
> Linus) chose to license under GPL v2 only for their own reasons.  The
> above issues are completely irrelevant.

Their reasons, whatever they were, have had detrimental consequences for 
future users. The *fact* that this has caused issues is entirely relevant.

> I have never proposed that we go with ODbL 1.0 only,  and have always
> accepted the upgrade clause as part and parcel of the licence.

That's probably because it is.

>> Yes, an upgrade clause is (on balance) good, although some people
>> regard that loss of control as immoral in itself.
>
> Opening it even more in the CTs, by that token, is more immoral.  I
> wouldn’t say it’s necessarily immoral, but I do think it is totally
> unnecessary.

I have provided historical examples of project licencing and relicencing 
and I have argued that they show this not to be the case.

>> 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.
>
> Yay, more fear.

Which part of what I wrote there is factually or logically incorrect?

- Rob.