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

[Simon Ward]

On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 11:08:11AM +0000, Rob Myers wrote:
> >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.

You think:

OSM should not be limited by an external definition.

OKD is one such external definition, but you do not find it limiting,

You think the OKD is excellent (independently of whether it would be a
good idea for OSMF to reference it).

I can’t quite put that together logically to form a conclusion, but I
think it’s inferred that, despite *you* not finding the OKD limiting,
you feel that OSM would be limited by it.  So I have to ask, is that
correct?

I think the OKD is a good way of defining “free and open”, which is
currently left undefined and open to interpretation.

Because I’m a free software advocate, I quite understand the mindset
that when “free software” (or “open source software”) is mentioned it is
always meant in the sense of the Free Software Definition (or Open
Source Definition).  In the real world “free software” gets
mis‐interpreted as “free of charge software” (and people have been known
to produce “open source” software where source code is available but you
can’t do anything with it).

If I am right that the intention is that the “free and open” is meant in
a similar sense, then I do not see why defining it against the OKD is
limiting to OSM.

If I am wrong, I’m afraid that some of the conspiracy theories floating
around that people are attempting to subvert OSM by putting big
loopholes in the terms may be true.  I agree to the CTs even less so
than I did previously.

If there is something wrong with applying the OKD to OSM, then I
wouldn’t mind hearing it. Possibly there are flaws in the definition and
it could be improved, or OSM could use it to write a different
definition, although I would strongly prefer not to do
this—fragmentention between free software and open source software, and
in the licensing, hasn’t done free software and open source software
many, if any, favours.

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