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

[80n]

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Andy Allan <gravitystorm at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:53 PM, 80n <80n80n at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > There's only one undeniable fact in this whole affair.  Exactly 100% of
> all
> > contributors have signed up to CC-BY-SA and have indicated that they are
> > willing to contribute their data under that license.
>
> Given that that has been the only option, that's hardly surprising.
>

Everyone had two options:  1) agree to CC-BY-SA or 2) take your data to some
other project (plenty to choose from).

Nobody forced you to contribute to OSM.  You agreed to CC-BY-SA.


Nobody was ever given the option to contribute under a different
> license. Using this to bolster your position is a bit disingenuous,
> especially since the last 30,000 people have also agreed to ODbL
> without any mass hysteria.
>

> > That is a clear mandate for CC-BY-SA.  Where's the mandate for ODbL?
> After
> > more than two years of license-twiddling they still don't have a clue how
> > much support there is.
>
> "They" do, both amongst Foundation members and by a (small) survey of
> contributors. Now we'll find out what the full contributor body has to
> say, but you're pretty outspoken in trying to ensure this stage has a
> time limit - effectively ensuring that some people will be excluded. I
> expect you'd be quite happy to see as many people as possible failing
> to meet whatever deadline you wish to see imposed on the relicensing,
> since that works in your favour too.
>
> After reading your arguments on the wiki and all these messages it's
> pretty clear you want to keep the CC-BY-SA license, ignore the
> fundamental problems with it,


Ah yes.  Those fundamental problems.  Perhaps it's time to revisit them.
The Chicken Little predictions that the sky would fall in clearly haven't
happened.  The spirit of the license is overwhelmingly respected and there
is evidence of large scale use of the data (MapQuest for example) and
serious mainstream interest (see list of SotM sponsors).  So what were the
problems again?



> and have little interest in any other
> option. And if we gave you a veto, you'd use it, regardless of how
> many people want ODbL.
>
> Cheers,
> Andy
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20100716/e81caf53/attachment.html>