[Osmf-talk] New license change proposal status
80n80n at gmail.com
Fri Dec 4 00:29:38 UTC 2009
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 10:37 PM, SteveC <steve at asklater.com> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 2009, at 10:29 AM, 80n wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Matthias Urlichs <matthias at urlichs.de>
> > On Do, 2009-12-03 at 15:09 +0000, 80n wrote:
> > > 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.
> > That's a totally sensible thing to do when the original document cannot
> > be simplified.
> > Please tell us exactly what you think can be simplified instead of
> > simply calling for unspecific simplification, particularly this late.
> > I'm not calling for simplification. I'm calling for the LWG to properly
> acknowledge the risks associated with a compex legal agreement.
> Your demands are so watered down now it's just a vague call for
> 'acknowledgment' of 'risks'.
> Steve, I think you missed the part of my message that listed these risks.
There are however multiple risks associated with the license change that
> could break the project. In the most general terms the ones that come to
> mind are:
> * The assignment of rights to OSMF introduces a range of potential failure
> * The lack of any coherent license and therefore protection for the
> database content (as opposed to the database)
> * The weakness of the contract elements of the license when not supported
> by click-through
> * The exclusion of the reverse engineering clause (which couldn't be made
> to work, so just got dropped)
> * The loss of significant contributors and their data
> * The incompatability of ODbL with itself and with OSM's contributor terms.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the osmf-talk