[Osmf-talk] New license change proposal status
matt at asklater.com
Thu Dec 3 15:30:21 UTC 2009
> 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.
i don't think the human readable version of the document is supposed to
make it less complex. there are two issues here; one is that the license
reflects the law, which is complex. the other is that the license is
complex, long and full of legalese. the human readable summary is only
supposed to address the latter.
i'm sorry you're misinterpreting our proposal as a form of propaganda.
we're endorsing the ODbL, but we have tried to make the document
balanced and have it contain the problems as well as the benefits. i
will suggest we follow this up at the next LWG meeting tomorrow.
as to your point. yes, the ODbL is younger than CC BY-SA. but it has an
important advantage: it actually protects our data. CC BY-SA also, it
should be pointed out, is totally untested for factual data. in fact,
the authors of CC BY-SA recommend against using it for data, and
recommend using a PD-style license instead. the unanimous opinion of all
the lawyers i've spoken to is that CC BY-SA is at best risky, and at
worst provides no protection at all to the data we have.
> 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.
you're right - it should have been "at least 3 weeks". i've changed the
contributor terms accordingly. thanks for pointing this out!
More information about the osmf-talk