[Osmf-talk] License with or without virus
mnalis-openstreetmap-osmflist at voyager.hr
Tue Dec 8 20:13:54 UTC 2009
On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 02:30:23AM +0100, Henk Hoff wrote:
> 2009/12/8 Matija Nalis <mnalis-openstreetmap-osmflist at voyager.hr>
> > Forget from which license to which we are proposing changing. What I'm
> > talking about is question if the damage that WILL be done (data loss,
> > contributors alienation, etc) is worth the benefit (better protection
> > from the "bad guys who won't share")?
Although I *DO* prefer copyleft licenses like CC-BY-SA and ODbL, I do not
think that having OSM data potentially downgraded to PD in some of the
jurisdiction at some point in time is a "fate worse then death".
I've tried to articulate pro and cons better on page:
> > And "is this right time to do it,
> > are there really so many bad guys abusing OSM at the *moment* ? Or would
> > it perhaps be better to change it when it becomes obvious that they are
> > really becoming the problem, instead of now?"
> But then you're too late. And then the damage is even worse.
Maybe, and maybe not. I think that amount of people which would be *for*
licence change is dependant on the threat they percieve becase current
license is not able to protect their work from being "stolen".
That is, unless people can see the reason for license change (that is: the
direct threat that requires immediate action) much more of them will be
against such change due to suspicion ("you want to trick us out of our data
for some indescernible but surely malign plan of yours!")
If the threat is real and visible, IMHO much lower percentage would fight
it, and as such much less of the data would be lost (even if data and
dependency would have grown by that time).
> The right time to do this was when the OSM project started. We've gone way
> past that point. There's never going to be a right time (= having no damage)
I agree completly with that.
> On the other hand: there are also organizations that want to use OSM data,
> but think that the current license is not clear on the scope of derived work
> and are therefore are not using OSM data.
> To them the right time to do the change is now.....
I've answered that part on:
Opinions above are GNU-copylefted.
More information about the osmf-talk