[Osmf-talk] New license change proposal status

Richard Fairhurst richard at systemeD.net
Thu Dec 3 02:49:40 UTC 2009

SteveC wrote:

> On Dec 2, 2009, at 4:14 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>> Offering a PD option means "Whatever. I trust you guys. I just like
>> mapping. I really don't want to be bothered by any more e-mails about
>> relicensing."
> That's what *you* think it means. I think it means "Whatever, be  
> like FreeBSD and let's die as quickly as possible".

No, you misunderstand entirely.

I am not at all suggesting that the vote is:

    [  ] OSM should go ODbL
    [  ] OSM should stay CC-BY-SA
    [  ] OSM should go PD

I am suggesting, as I have been since before LWG existed:

    [  ]  Yes, OSM should go ODbL
    [  ]  No, OSM should stay CC-BY-SA
    [  ]  I don't care. Treat my contributions as PD.

It is not a vote for turning the whole project PD. (I like ODbL.) It  
is a way for the user to signal that _their_ contributions are PD. It  
is, to borrow your phrase of a couple of years ago, "formalising the  
scheme that already exists on the wiki".

It affords the user the right to licence their own contributions more  
liberally than the default (just like, say, Flickr), which is a matter  
of respect. But it's also an immensely useful user preference for OSMF  
to keep if, say, some unexpected asteroid-related licence incident  
happens next year, and another relicensing is required. If you have  
500 PD users in the project, that's 500 fewer people whose agreement  
you need second time round.

But hey, this response was written on a FreeBSD-based OS so clearly I  
should get down with the cool Linux kids. Apple seem to be doing ok  
though. ;)


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list