[OSM-legal-talk] A case for CT + CC-BY-SA

[Tobias Knerr]

Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Most of what you've said reads, to me, like an argument for licensing OSM
> under a non-sharealike licence - either true public domain or
> attribution-only.

True. Similar arguments, taken to a more fundamental level, can be used
to argue for more liberal licenses.

However, the CT happen to already contain a statement that lets the OSMF
publish the database under CC-BY-SA. CC-BY-SA is also a license that few
current mappers should hate so much that they cannot stand to be part of
a project that uses it.

This means that CT + CC-BY-SA is quite "cheap" in terms of both effort
and controversy. And it would eliminate the worst legal barriers our
users would face with CT + ODbL-only.

So couldn't we please add CC-BY-SA to the list of future OSM licenses
first and _then_ start the debate whether or not CC-BY/PD/... would be
an even better choice? I fear that a debate like that wouldn't go
anywhere right now and I would hate to be stuck with ODbL at that point.

> "Inadequate protection"? Of course, PD or attribution-only offers none of
> this so-called "protection". But if you're saying you're happy to stick with
> a licence whose provisions are generally believed to be of uncertain
> applicability to data[2], it seems to me much more _honest_ to offer the
> data on equal terms to all-comers, rather than the current situation where
> good guys abide by the letter of the licence and bad guys don't. 

Currently, we offer reasonable terms to good guys. Bad guys might be
able to squeeze out a bit more in some jurisdictions if they can live
with bad press and severed community ties.

That doesn't happen a lot, though - as far as I can tell - and the
possibility just doesn't bother me enough to let me prefer a solution
like ODbL-only that makes life harder for the good guys, too.

-- Tobias Knerr