[Osmf-talk] License with or without virus

80n 80n80n at gmail.com
Fri Dec 4 17:33:11 UTC 2009

On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Henk Hoff <henk at toffehoff.nl> wrote:

> We have had a very long process of getting to where we are now. There was
> always a pretty consistent message from the Foundation "we want to keep the
> SA and BY clauses in place". We simply cannot ask the membership to go for a
> license without these provisions. Not at this time, just before the
> membership vote.
> The question now is: is ODbL a better license for OSM than CC-BY-SA. yes or
> no.

The actual question that members are being asked to vote on is: "Question:
Do you approve the process of moving OpenStreetMap to the ODbL?"

This is not just voting for the ODbL but also voting for the other elements
of the proposal, in particular the Contributor Terms.

Henk, the way that you have expressed the question above is different from
the one that will be put to the membership.  It is misleading to suggest
that people will be voting on just the ODbL license.  They will be voting
both the ODbL and the Contributor Terms and the implementation process.

The question is not very clear and explict about this, to the extent that
even you have misquoted it.  It would be clearer if the question said "Do
you approve the process of moving OpenStreetMap to the Contributor Terms
contract and the ODbL?".

Since you could concievably have ODbL with the Contributor Terms isn't there
a need for clarity here?


For arguments sake: if we've decided yes, we can go into a transition fase
> to get the data into this license.
> After (or maybe even: during) that we can have a debate on "now we have
> ODbL, do we still need SA or BY or whatever other clause.
> Abandoning SA or BY is an very major change in our license and has major
> consequences. That needs a good debate within the community. Maybe also a
> thorough debate in the next State of the Map. Going non-viral because it's
> "trendy" is not a very strong argument (to put it mildly ;-) )  Such a
> debate will only delay the process further (which is already taking ages...)
> BTW: It's not about what I personally want with my data, but what is best
> for the OSM-project as a whole.
> - Let's say OSM is not going viral. In that case we cannot import datasets
> that require SA. So where potentially missing out datasets. (e.g. Canada)
> - If we're going viral: we can import datasets with SA requirement but also
> dataset without SA requirement.
> I'm more than happy to debate the need for whatever clause we need or don't
> need in our license. But let us try first whether ODbL is better or not. We
> can always make it more open in the (near) future. The other way round is a
> lot harder.
> Cheers,
> Henk
> 2009/12/4 Jaak Laineste <jaak at nutiteq.com>
>     Is there actually consensus about share-alike clause? I guess that
>> contributors love it and users hate it, just as with GPL/LGPL software
>> license options. The quick poll showed no clear preference among
>> contributors.
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20091204/00d64e1a/attachment.html>

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list