[Osmf-talk] New license change proposal status
matt at asklater.com
Thu Dec 3 14:45:48 UTC 2009
> 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.
> How did you deal with point 12 about license complexity? The proposal
> document misconstrues the problem as being one about readability by a
> layman. The issue is about complexity of law and is more analogous to
> the reliability of complex and untested software.
there's nothing to deal with - we've tried to reduce the complexity of
the license to only what is necessary. that necessary complexity cannot
be reduced further. the law is complex. what do you want, that we go and
radically simplify and harmonise database laws worldwide?
> How did you deal with point 5 about 3 weeks not being long enough? The
> final version of the license change proposal does not include the change
> that you agreed to.
i'm sorry - i can't find the place where we agreed a change. i can see
that you wanted it to be longer than 3 weeks and i remember an LWG
meeting where we discussed it, but i don't remember any agreement to
> So, no you didn't deal with *all* of those, did you.
i think we did. we didn't "deal" with them by doing exactly what you
wanted, but we addressed them all.
again - i'm not saying that ODbL is perfect. but it's not broken where
CC BY-SA is horribly broken.
More information about the osmf-talk