[OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Breaking up is hard to do (was New Logo in the Wiki)

[Russ Nelson]

Frederik Ramm writes:
 > On 05/05/11 06:27, Russ Nelson wrote:
 > > I'm wondering on what data you come to that conclusion? Because people
 > > have clicked "ok" on the license change and CTs? And yet there is no
 > > agreement and no contract. The OSMF has made it clear: you agree, or
 > > we delete your data and throw it into the dustbin of history. An
 > > agreement made under duress is no agreement at all.
 > >
 > > So, yes, do please tell me where you're getting your data from,
 > > because if you're counting my click, you can discount it.
 > 
 > Would you really say that personally, as far as your contributions are 
 > concerned, you consider your "I agree" click to be legally void because 
 > it happened "under duress"?

No, I'm saying that *everyone's* agreement is invalid because it was
made under duress.

 >  From time to time I get emails from various service providers (eg 
 > PayPal) telling me: "We're changing our terms and conditions... please 
 > click here to agree" or so. With the implication that they will not 
 > continue to provide services to me unless I agree to their (unilateral) 
 > change of terms. Would you say that such an agreement happens "under 
 > duress" as well?

No, because the initial T&C says how they will be changed in the
future.

 > Is it not rather like this: You have created data that OSMF offers to 
 > distribute for free via their infrastructure; now they're changing their 
 > terms and they only continue to offer this service if you agree to the 
 > changed terms?

That's a great theory; where was that offer documented? It wasn't of
course; this is just a rhetorical question intended to point out that
you're making shit up.

The problem here is what the problem has *always* been: that the
solution (changing the license) is worse than the problem (a license
that people speculate may not work).

I just want to map; and I don't want to worry that my contributions
are going to be deleted just because somebody touched something before
or after I touched it. The fact that I have zero confidence in this
not happening says that the solution simply isn't working. Relicensing
is a bad, bad, bad idea. It has imposed large costs (in terms of
people spending time fighting against the relicensing or trying to
figure out how to make relicensing work). Nobody knows if the OdBL
will actually solve the problem that is causing the relicensing. We're
running beta software in production.

It's just a bad, bad, bad idea, and the fact that the OSMF *continues*
to press on in the face of objections gives me reason to not trust
their wisdom. Which makes me worry that my contributions might all go
for naught at some point in the future. It's group-think. The emperor
has no clothes, and there are no little kids around to say "Gee, this
relicensing thing ... maybe it's not such a good idea?"

It's too late. You have to live with CC-By-SA, even if it's not
perfect. It's all you've got.

-- 
--my blog is at    http://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  |     Sheepdog