[Osmf-talk] New license change proposal status

80n 80n80n at gmail.com
Thu Dec 3 15:09:37 UTC 2009


On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Matt Amos <matt at asklater.com> wrote:

> 80n wrote:
>
>>        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.
>>
>>
>> Matt
>> 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?


You've tried to show that you've addressed the question of complexity in
your proposal document by referencing a human readable version of the
license.  This is an attempt to influence OSMF members rather than present a
fairly balanced propsal that acknowledges the issues and associated risks
for what they are.

The ODbL is a complex license that is new and untried.  This makes it higher
risk than the existing license.  A human readable version of the license
doesn't change that at all.


>
>  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 change it.


August 4th, 2009.  Noted in this document
http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_0hnnw6tc9 against point 5 in green.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20091203/72c19d0e/attachment.html>


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list