[Osmf-talk] New license change proposal status

Matt Amos matt at asklater.com
Thu Dec 3 14:13:13 UTC 2009


80n wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 2:04 PM, Matt Amos <matt at asklater.com 
> <mailto:matt at asklater.com>> wrote:
> 
>     80n wrote:
> 
>         On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Matt Amos <matt at asklater.com
>         <mailto:matt at asklater.com> <mailto:matt at asklater.com
>         <mailto:matt at asklater.com>>> wrote:
> 
>            80n wrote:
>             > For the record I am still in favour of an attribution /
>            share-alike type
>             > of license but strongly believe that the new license
>         proposal is
>            not the
>             > right solution.  I have no problem with anyone who wants
>         to make
>            their
>             > contributions available in the public domain.
> 
>            it would really help if you could say why you think the
>         license proposal
>            isn't the right solution and what, if anything, you think the
>         right
>            solution is.
> 
>            Mike has started a page for it, if you would prefer to put
>         this on the
>            wiki:
>          
>          http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Why_You_Should_Vote_No
> 
> 
>         Many of the issues relate to the Contributor Terms and, as you
>         know, have already been presented to the LWG.  Some were
>         addressed, others such as the OSM's ODbL data being incompatible
>         with other ODbL datasets have been left unresolved.
> 
>         Details here: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_0hnnw6tc9
> 
> 
>     and, you'll remember, we dealt with *all* of those except the one
>     you cited. as richard pointed out, the issue of contributor terms
>     relicensing vs. accepting odbl datasets isn't one that can be easily
>     resolved. you think that accepting odbl datasets is more important,
>     i think that being able to practically relicense at a later date is
>     more important.
> 
> 
> If you don't have enough confidence in ODbL to rule out the possible 
> need to relicense then why is ODbL a good choice?

that's a very rhetorical stance. i'll rule out the need to relicense if 
you can rule out future changes in the law, the appearance of even 
better licenses and changes in the opinion of the community.

i'm not saying that ODbL is ideal - i never have. i'm saying that CC 
BY-SA is totally, utterly, irrecoverably broken and ODbL is the best 
alternative we have at the moment.

cheers,

matt




More information about the osmf-talk mailing list