[Osmf-talk] New license change proposal status
peter.miller at itoworld.com
Wed Dec 2 11:58:00 UTC 2009
On 2 Dec 2009, at 07:59, Gervase Markham wrote:
> I am intentionally only addressing a small part of your message;
> this is
> not supposed to be a "rebuttal". And I know you say this is not your
> only objection.
> On 02/12/09 03:18, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> I share your view that CC-BY-SA is unsuitable (but not everyone in
>> project does). I also know that any license change is going to be
>> painful. I have many reservations about the ODbL which are not due to
>> shortcomings in the license that could be fixed, but which are
>> simply a
>> general consequence of share-alike licensing. One of them, but by far
>> not the only one, is that any such type of license requires policing,
>> and that consumes a lot of work and causes bad blood as we're
>> discovering with all the accusations thrown around on the "lacking
>> proper attribution" wiki page.
> I think it's important to note that policing licenses may involve a
> substantial amount of work, but does not _require_ bad blood and
> accusations. The Free Software Foundation has been enforcing the GPL
> the substantial body of software to which it holds the copyright (it
> requires copyright assignment for FSF projects) for twenty years now.
> Almost all of this work is done privately, behind the scenes, and
> politely. They went to court for the first time in 20 years recently,
> after several years of trying to persuade Linksys to comply, and there
> was a prompt settlement. I've never seen anyone with a bad word to say
> about their enforcement policies and procedures.
> So it's certainly possible to get this right. We may not be doing that
> right now, and if so, we should fix it. But bad blood and conflict is
> not an inherent part of share-alike licences.
Lets see if we can get this done without to much bad blood! (and we do
seem to be doing that reasonably well so far)
I see a number of issues.
- The 'Multiple Jurisdiction Clause' still appears to be outstanding
(ITO's lawyer and the OSMF lawyer both seemed to think that this is an
- Is the Reverse Engineering Clause still unresolved? If not then
please update this page. If it is not resolved then what is happening
about it. 
- The Produced Work guidelines seem very thin. I only mention this
because this seems to be one of the key difficulties with the license
that assumes that a Produced Work and a Derived Database are different
and actually there is a lot of overlap. I have added a comment on the
talk page about KML.
-Validating the license. Some time ago I proposed that we validation
some of the key Use Cases with some target users to see if they would
be happy. Has this happened? ie have we checked with a TV station and
a newpaper etc etc?
- Articles of Association - given that contributors are being asked to
give all their contributions to the OSMF and given that the OSMF can
change the terms  then the Articles of Association for the
foundation seem to be important. They are generally recognised to be
too weak at present and a working group to review the Articles was
proposed in May09 .  I expressed interest in the working group at
the time but have not heard anything more about it and there is no
information about a work group on the foundation website.
- There is then the issue about whether the board should allow
contributors to tick a 'my contributions are PD anyway'. Personally I
think that there should be such an option. I now support PD now
because of the inherent difficulties I now see with share-alike
licenses for data (as outlined by Creative Commons on the OSM wiki
). For the avoidance of doubt I would support the adoption of the
ODbL license at this point for pragmatic reasons but urge the board
the include a PD option.
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
More information about the osmf-talk