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

Emilio Anzon emilio at anzon.it
Sun Dec 6 17:16:52 UTC 2009


On Sun, Dec 06, 2009 at 10:16:13AM +0000, 80n wrote:
> 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.
> 

IFF your example is correct THEN ODbL+CT betray the spirit of "Free|dom"
at least as I gained it in almost 20 years of Linux cummunity :(

Steve you said the we should be alive as in Linux, didn't you ?
so please explain where is 80n wrong in this example ??


\Emilio
-- 
Member of Italian Linux Society - PLUTO - Italian Linux Documentation Project
Member of the Internet Society - ACM - ICANN - USENIX - SAGE
Proud Member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation & Blue Ribbon - ALCEI
GnuPG Key fingerprint = 7AB2 259D C7F7 E26C 25AE  C5DD F9F8 7D71 F43D 2E0E
                                     
<cite>                                                                          
E' ricercando l'impossibile che l'uomo ha sempre realizzato il possibile.          
Coloro che si sono saggiamente limitati a cio' che appariva loro come              
possibile, non hanno mai avanzato di un solo passo.                                
                                        Michail Bakunin (1814 - 1876)              
</cite>         




More information about the osmf-talk mailing list