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

[James Livingston]

On 16/07/2010, at 6:35 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
> ODbL is a comparable licence to BY-SA, with the main change being that it has actually been written to cover data. If people don't relicence because they are afraid not enough people will relicence then that will be a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

While that is definitely one of the main changes, it's not the only one - there is also:
* Tiles do not have to be under the same license as the DB (whether or not people realised what when originally choosing CC-BY-SA)
* It also uses contract law, which makes things a *lot* more complicated

Since we're not voting on ODbL, but ODbL + contributor terms, there's also:
* Changing the licence in future may not require your permission (if you do contribute for a while, or are un-contactable for three weeks)
* Currently you can import any data with a compatible licence (e.g. CC-BY-SA, CC-BY), you can't if we change without the copyright holder's permission


> BY-SA does not protect the freedom to use OSM data in Australia. Trying to continue pretending that it does doesn't serve the interests of Australians.

Assuming you mean protecting contributor's right to be attributed a number of Australian groups would disagree - including our government.


-- 
James