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

Richard Weait richard at weait.com
Fri Jul 23 23:02:43 BST 2010


On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Liz <edodd at billiau.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010, Kai Krueger wrote:
>> So far the the impressions I got from the members of the licensing group
>> vary from anywhere between e.g. 10% data loss is acceptable to as high as
>> 90% data loss is acceptable (as long as a majority of signed up accounts
>> agree), which means as far as I can interpret, there is no where close to
>> an agreed process even within the licensing group.
>
> When do we get an answer to this question set?
> Almost 3 weeks have gone, and again no straight answers.
> It has become quite obvious that some are happy with a very large data loss
> for some areas of the planet. How much data loss will they accept on their own
> sector of the planet?

Dear Liz,

you say, "It has become quite obvious that some are happy with a very
large data loss..."

I see two problems with this, Liz.  Who are you suggesting is "happy"?

Also, there will be no data loss.

No data will be lost.  Data that is now CC-By-SA will always be
CC-By-SA.  Currently published planets, for example are CC-By-SA and
will stay that way.  No data loss.  The data is still there.  Still
CC-By-SA.

We'll each choose to allow our data to be promoted to OSM with the
license upgrade, or we will not.  We'll have that informed choice.  As
we should.  Do you advocate just taking data and re-licensing it
without consent, Liz?  I don't.

That informed choice means that some contributors will choose not to
proceed.  At a minimum those who are unreachable or deceased will not
be able to assent to the license upgrade.  And those who make the
informed decision to not proceed will have their wishes honoured as
well.

It is my preference that each contributor agree with ODbL and CT and
allow their data to be promoted to the ODbL-licensed future
OpenStreetMap.  But still you create friction with your fiction.

I see ODbL as a better way forward for OSM.  Not just because it is
designed for data from the start.  Not just because it is designed in
the same Attribution, Share Alike spirit that lead to the choice of
the unfortunately inappropriate CC-By-SA in the first place.  But also
because ODbL makes improvements over CC-By-SA.

I think that it is a big improvement that data is SA and Produced
Works may be licensed differently.  One prominent OSM contributor
provides code and data and much more to OSM, but can't use the very
data he contributed to OSM in his publication because he must maintain
copyright in the images.  Why is that?  He's already given the data to
OSM.  Under ODbL, we fix that.  He can render the data in a way that
adds value for his readers, and maintain copyright in his publication.

And you restate the question, how much promoted data is enough to
proceed.  I'll restate the answer.  The same answer that you have had
before.  It is impossible to know how much will be promoted because
the contributors have not yet had their say.  And it is impossible to
know how much will be enough because not all data is equal.  So we
will have to find out.  All of us.  Together.  Let's see what the
result is.

In which ways would you like to help?




More information about the legal-talk mailing list