[OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing

[Anthony]

On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 4:03 AM, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
> I think there may be a misunderstanding here. The clause 3 in the
> contributor terms is precisely there because we want to *avoid* speaking for
> people in the future. Anyone arguing against that basically says: "Well of
> course you can change your mind about the license at a later time but you'll
> have to go through the same procedure again; effectively I and everyone else
> demand a veto on that, and if we should be dead, uninterested, or
> unreachable by then, well, tough luck." - The "après moi le déluge" stance
> if you will.
>
> In my eyes, *that* is a stance of astounding arrogance but it seems that we
> have different perceptions. - What exactly is, in your eyes, humble about
> dictating to future members of OSM exactly what they can do with the
> project? Remember we're talking about future members - those who do all the
> work and keep the project alive. Remember also that they are likely to
> outnumber us, vastly. Why again would it be our moral right to tell them
> what to do, and why should we have reason to believe that we know what is
> best for the project in 10 years?

I think you're right that it's a matter of different perceptions.
What you're describing is the way copyright law works.  If you feel
that copyright is a moral right, then of course you'll have no problem
with copyright holders being able to dictate what happens to their
works, even 10 years in the future.  The fact that contributors are
giving any license at all is something to be grateful for.

> I think it is nothing but selfish. You don't even know if you'll be in OSM
> in 10 years. Neither do I.

Well sure it's selfish.  Would you prefer us to be self-destructive?
Who are we supposed to be doing this for if not for ourselves?

The fact that you don't even know if you'll be in OSM in 10 years is a
big part of the point.  You yourself said that most people wouldn't
want 2/3rds of the members of a fork relicensing OSM.  If you're no
longer an active member of OSM, what does it matter if it's 2/3rds of
a fork or 2/3rds of OSM itself?

If 10 years from now OSM is something that I don't want to support, I
*want* them to be limited in what they can do with my contributions.

> But in exchange for every puny node you add today
> you want the future OSM to do your bidding, to stick to a narrow set of
> conditions of which you have not the faintest idea whether they will allow
> the project to flourish or whether they'll strangle it in the future.

This is outright dishonest.  The future OSM is under no obligation to
do anyone's bidding.  They simply need to follow the license *if* they
want to continue to use my contributions.

Now, I'm not going to defend the ODbL.  I think it's a bad license,
which imposes far too onerous conditions on reuse.  On the other hand,
most people seem to disagree with this.  If you think the conditions
of the ODbL are acceptable, then what's so bad about making OSMF eat
its own dog food?

> I think that endangering the future of the project just to be able to keep a
> little data on board (and along with it some people who seem to care far
> more about themselves and the soapbox they stand on than about the project)
> would be stupid, to say the least.

And I think it's stupid to give up your rights today just because
someone claims (without argument) that not giving up those rights
might possibly endanger some project in the future (a project which,
as you say, you don't even know if you're going to be a part of).

If OSMF worries that the current version of ODbL might be
fundamentally flawed to the point where the project would be
"strangled" 10 years from now, then they should 1) talk to the ODC
about that concern, and get a commitment from them that they will fix
such flaws in a future license version; and 2) add "or any later
version" to the contributor terms (yes, that's in the license, but
adding it to the CT would cover the possibility that there's a flaw in
the "or later version" part of the ODbL).

But personally, I think that's silly.  The project is so much more
than just the data.  You've talked yourself about how easy it is to
replace the data of people who don't agree to the switch.  Now imagine
how much easier it'll be with the technology we have 10 years from
now.