[OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass

[TimSC]

Hi all,

I agree with Richard Weait: the community is more important than the 
data. Although, as Simon Ward said "Everyone has a say on whether their 
contributions can be licensed under the new license.", I am 
uncomfortable with the ODbL process and I resent not being polled before 
the license change was decided. OSMF has gotten this far in the process 
without checking they have a clear majority of contributors behind the 
process (and not just OSMF members). Being told (by Steve Coast in an 
LWG meeting) that an informal poll on doodle of mapping contributors, 
conducted AFTER the decision had been taken, legitimates the process is 
not particularly satisfactory. Polls should be done BEFORE the process 
becomes irreversible. Not to mention the notes that accompanied the vote 
were unashamedly pro-ODbL, despite Creative Commons criticizing the 
ODbL. OSMF really need to learn how to run a poll with the intention 
listening to the contributor's views, rather than guaging agreement to 
their agenda (however well intentioned).

I am worried about the way ahead. Based on unknown level of contributor 
support, I don't have much faith in having a real voice in the future of 
OSM beyond relicensing. Of course, the LWG and OSMF have the best 
intentions and have gone to great lengths to get feedback but they have 
something to learn about democracy (if they want to claim they are 
accountable to the majority). But ultimately, the LWG was formed with 
certain assumptions (no PD) that were never questioned; it is the 
process that got us here that makes me worried. The new contributor 
rights also waters down my effective veto rights to control future 
licenses. I feel OSMF have overstepping their stewardship bounds to 
become the gatekeepers. I laugh ironically when it says on the OSMF wiki 
saying OSMF "has no desire to own the data": ODbL effectively does that. 
They should revert to their supporting role and let the contributors 
drive change with OSMF as support.

Steve Coast did explain his reasons to me for not polling the 
contributors, I think he was against contributors being pestered about 
non essential issues (apologies if this is incorrect). I'd say the 
direction of licensing was an essential issue.

Rob Myers's (and LWG's) plan to start relicensing with the unquantified 
possibility of failure would risk the community without good reason. If 
we try to rectify the problem at this stage, I'd say we are in serious 
trouble. 80n has a good point about forking the project. Or conduct an 
inclusive poll of contributors and then make an informed decision - 
which will add months to an already tortuous process. Unless OSMF 
indicate they are open to ideas on the way ahead, it is really a bit 
pointless to seriously suggesting anything - we are already "locked in" 
to the process. I already raised these issues with the LWG but I did not 
get the feeling they were about to crack - lol!

My dream scenario is OSMF polls contributors with unbiased supporting 
documentation, they abide by the result and then I work a PD fork 
(different people and areas have different licensing situations). I 
might even license my previous data to ODbL in a deal to get that up and 
running. Share alike (ODbL) is just too complex to be workable (Creative 
Commons agrees with me). Of course, it would not be as comprehensive as 
an SA-licensed OSM, but it would be more legally predictable.

Rant concluded!

TimSC