[Osmf-talk] [OSM-talk] Thank you, LWG

80n 80n80n at gmail.com
Sun Dec 6 10:16:13 UTC 2009

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Jonas Kr├╝ckel <osm at jonas-krueckel.de>wrote:

> Am 06.12.2009 um 10:47 schrieb Florian Lohoff:
> > On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 09:13:14PM -0700, SteveC wrote:
> >>> Richard Weait schrieb:
> >>>> I think the LWG has done a good job on a difficult task.  A task that
> >>>> we, as a community, asked them to do for us because we couldn't
> >>>> implement a license change as a group of 20,000 (at the time)
> >>>> individual mappers.  I'm glad that the LWG looked after our shared
> >>>> concerns so ably, by consulting with lawyers, the Creative Commons,
> >>>> the Open Knowledge Foundation and the community at large over the few
> >>>> years of the license discussion to date.
> >>>
> >>> I'm sorry, but for the last two years I can't remember asking for a
> >>> license change at all.
> >>
> >> And there lays the point, we should all do what Ulf asks for.
> >
> > So we should do the YOU or the OSMF asks us to do?
> >
> > Ulf is not alone - I havent asked  ... And a lot of people did
> > not do so too.
> >
> > Even that i didnt ask for a license change - the new license is much to
> complex
> > for my mind - CC-BY-SA hasnt shown any real problems up to now so i see
> the
> > whole discussion as an artificial problem.
> I'm not sure if the CC-BY-SA license is really simpler than ODbL. Just look
> at this website here http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/summary/and you'll see that the ODbL is as simple as CC-BY-SA. Plus it's now clear
> how to attribute correct and when your derived work also has to be
> ShareAlike and when not.
> ODbL appears simple when expressed like this:

As long as you: * Share-Alike: If you publicly use any adapted version of
this database, or works produced from an adapted database, you must also
offer that adapted database under the ODbL.

But in combination with the Contributor Terms it becomes complex and has
unexpected properties.

For example I could take some OSM data, modify it, and publish it.  But you
couldn't then add my modifications back into OSM.  Why not?  Because in
order to do that you have to agree to the Contributor Terms.  But you don't
have the rights to do that for my ODbL licensed data, only I have the right
to do that.  So while I can add my ODbL data to OSM you can't.  And if I
choose not to then OSM loses.

Simple?  No.

Personally I'm also a PD fan and the only thing I was missing from the LWG
> was a survey to see if the majority of the OSM contributors wants to keep
> the attribution and Share alike component in a new license or if they would
> want completely free data under PD or CC0.
> Jonas
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20091206/bcca2dc0/attachment.html>

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list