[OSM-legal-talk] New site about the license change
Anthony
osm at inbox.org
Tue Nov 16 18:06:51 GMT 2010
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 12:46 PM, andrzej zaborowski <balrogg at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 16 November 2010 18:23, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Richard Fairhurst
>> <richard at systemed.net> wrote:
>>> I'd personally rather have PD, but
>>> the community consensus is not there for that; and if the community wishes
>>> to have a share-alike licence, I'm not comfortable with recommending a
>>> "leaky" licence whose share-alike provisions can be trivially circumvented.
>>
>> What makes you believe that the ODbLs provisions cannot also be
>> trvially circumvented? Just because of the contract law provisions?
>> That's the most trivially circumvented part of the ODbL. You just
>> don't agree to the contract.
>
> Is your opinion that no license could protect OSM data so that
> share-alike and attribution are enforceable in practice?
My opinion is that CC-BY-SA, as well as ODbL, both "protect OSM data",
in varying jurisdictions to varying extents, and that there is no way,
consistent with OSM principles (*), to broaden that extent.
(*) By which, I mean, without adopting techniques like tightly
controlling access to the complete database, imposing DRM
restrictions, etc.
> If not then
> you could perhaps help in writing a better license so it can become
> the OSM's license or the ODbL 1.1
My idea of what would constitute a good license for OSM does not
coincide with that of OSMF management, so coming up with a better
license would be a waste of time.
More information about the legal-talk
mailing list