[OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions
balrogg at gmail.com
Fri Sep 3 19:21:56 BST 2010
On 3 September 2010 11:54, Rob Myers <rob at robmyers.org> wrote:
> On 09/03/2010 10:03 AM, Simon Ward wrote:
>> I don’t see much compromise happening from OSMF on the contributor
>> terms. There is a very small amount, but OSMF seems to want to stick as
>> close to what they have, with no chance of what they consider a
>> significant change.
> If anyone can suggest a way of combining the ability to change the licence
> in future with increasingly not being able to do so as more and more
> contributors become uncontactable I'm sure a compromise can be found. ;-)
>> The contributor terms are now the sticking point for many people against
>> the ODbL+DbCL+CT combination, and these are not just people against a
>> licence change from CC by-sa, but people who are in principle happy with
>> the licence change.
> This is a change that cannot be sugar-coated. It is needed in order to
> ensure that if future changes become necessary they can be made.
> I'm sorry to be harsh but I think that concentrating on the risks of the new
> CTs rather than the risks they are meant to address shows a failure of
> perspective. I don't believe that a stoic or pollyannaish acceptance that
> the licence of OSM may gradually be rendered ineffective by change outside
> the project is morally superior to enabling the project to rise to future
If ODbL is rendered ineffective then a new version of ODbL should be
released and same as becoming more active in the LWG, contributors can
become active in the ODC and try to have their issues with the license
That's why I think the issue of whether we really want the ability for
the license to be changed completely should be discussed first.
Obviously those who created the current version of CT think that it is
a good idea, and Frederik thinks so too and is very vocal about it.
Despite that it does not seem the majority thinks so, please see
More information about the legal-talk