[OSM-legal-talk] CT, section 3

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 11/26/10 13:13, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer wrote:
> I am sure that each part of the thought experiment is allowed under the
> current CT rules. Or do you see something that violates the CT?

Your thought experiment was built on OSMF *changing* the CT.

Now changing the CT doesn't violate the CT, but of course your agreement 
is to the old, not the new CT. So if they want to change it and continue 
using your data, they will have to ask you.

Your thought experiemnt was invalid because you assumed that they could 
change the CT and continue using your data.

> "A free and open license" includes Public Domain, which is just a small step
> away from proprietary.

Under the CT, OSMF will never be allowed to change to a proprietary 
license, *even if* 2/3 of contributors agreed.

> And under the current CT rules I am not guaranteed to
> be allowed to even participate in the vote.

You are guaranteed a vote if you are an active mapper.

I do not think that you have a moral right to continue determining the 
course of the project after you have left. Remain active and have a say 
- or leave the project, but then also leave it alone.

> 4. Force all contributors to accept CT terms that allow a license change to PD
> without out-out clauses. Some people in group "c" will leave OpenStreetMap.
> Those that remain might be too few to stop a PD license change when a vote
> comes up and will then leave at a later point.

This is pure speculation. I think that very people will be so 
short-sighted that this is an issue for them. I mean, you can be for or 
against anything right now, but if you are not blinded by ideology of 
any sort then you will have to accept that times change, and that 
*anything* you try to enshrine for eternity will hurt the project.

> Both choice "2" and choice "4" make it very likely that all people in group
> "c" will leave OpenStreetMap in the long view, which greatly damages the
> project.

Speculation.

> Choice "3" might be a good compromise.

No, choice 3 will create the exact same problems we have now around any 
future license change. With the CT as they are, if anyone ever wanted to 
change the license, the process is clear and easy: Convince OSMF to 
initiate the process; hold a vote among active mappers; if 2/3 agree, 
the license is changed, if not, it's not. End of story. What you request 
here, giving the individual a way to opt out of a license change with 
whatever is considered "his" data, would mean that we would again have 
to deal with data loss; with the question of who owns what; we would see 
people in favour of the license change voting with "no" because they 
fear the data loss; we would see FUD & agitation on all sides. Not good.

> I do not know, however, whether people in group "b" are interested in a
> compromise or whether a fork of OpenStreetMap is seen as inevitable anyway.

This is not about people in groups, about ideology, about a fork, or 
about who owns what.

What we do is a huge, collective work. As part of your commitment to 
this project, you have to accept that you cannot always have it your 
way; and that you will occasionally have to follow what a large majority 
wants. Either you take part in the project or you don't.

You say you want to be "asked".

I think it is simply an illusion to believe that you could take part in 
this but have a veto. If the technical team decides to switch to Oracle 
you won't have a veto. If the majority of mappers decide they want to 
change everything from "highway=" to "road=" you won't have a veto. If 
they decide to rename the project "Whuzzit" instead of "OpenStreetMap" 
you won't have a veto. In all these case you will not only not have a 
veto, you will not have a legal basis to disallow that the project 
continues to use what you have once contributed.

You say you want to retain "control".

It is not normal for the individual in this project to have any kind of 
control. We have had cases where somebody contributed data and later 
changed his mind, leaving the project and removing his data. The data 
was then promptly re-instated by others. Is that what you would call 
"having control"?

If you participate in OSM, you are adding water to an ocean. It does not 
make sense to want to hold on to "your" bit of water. If this is 
important to you, then I think you should think twice about 
participating in a project like this.

My view is this: You should look at the project today. Look at its 
community, its dynamics, everything. And then decide if you want to be a 
part of it. And "it" may well include the millions of mappers who join 
after you and who might turn the project into a direction that neither 
of us can now foresee - that's the nature of a collaborative effort. You 
can engage in the project, try to shape it and give it direction through 
various means. Any data you contribute becomes part of the project - 
just as everything else. You write a posting on the mailing list, you 
influence the opinion of other people, you go to a mapping party and 
explain the project to a stranger - all this is not something where you 
can, three years hence, say "I'm leaving and by the way I am 
retroactively removing all impact I had on the project". I think it 
should be the same for map data you contribute.

Bye
Frederik