[Osmf-talk] License with or without virus

80n 80n80n at gmail.com
Tue Dec 8 21:33:22 UTC 2009


On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 8:58 PM, SteveC <steve at asklater.com> wrote:

>
> On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:39 PM, 80n wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 8:18 PM, Matija Nalis <
> mnalis-openstreetmap-osmflist at voyager.hr> wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 01:52:48AM +0000, Matt Amos wrote:
> > > 80n wrote:
> > > > How many bad guys have abused OSM data so far?
> > >
> > > i count two that have announced it publicly; Anthony and RichardF. how
> > > many others who haven't announced it, i don't know.
> >
> > I do not know the history behind this; could you provide me with some
> > more info about what you're talking about?
> >
> > Both of these cases have been presented on this list in the last few
> days.  Each one as some part of the argument that CC-BY-SA does or doesn't
> work.
> >
> > It seems that the LWG have spent the last two years working on a license
> to protect against events that has only happened as a consequence of them
> presenting the license.
> >
> > They have not yet presented any prior examples that justify their
> assertion that the reason for this new license is because CC BY-SA is
> broken.
> >
> > The LWG Emperor does not appear to have any clothes.
>
> I've got to ask... have you actually lost the plot George?
>
> You can't _seriously_ be trying to claim that CCBYSA is fine, given all the
> evidence presented? This is what I tell people who accuse me of being too
> harsh on the mailing lists now and again, that the people I'm dealing with
> aren't rational anyway so things like Matt's careful arguments won't affect
> them.
>
>
The fact is that no hard evidence has been presented.  There's a lot of
anecdotal stuff but no hard data.  I've seen plenty of opinion from well
qualified people but no actual real cases where CC BY-SA has failed to
protect OSM.

Not one single case has been presented where the intent of the CC BY-SA
license has been abused.

Not one single case where someone has damaged the OSM project by abusing the
license.

Not one single case where it can be shown that it doesn't work in practice.

The LWG has prepared a document that presents the case against CC BY-SA:
http://www.osmfoundation.org/images/7/79/Why_CC_BY_SA_is_Unsuitable.pdf  It
contains a lot of material about why CC BY-SA might not be a good license
and discusses a lot of the case law that might be relevant.  However, it
does not contain a single example of actual abuse.

The fact is that most people respect the spirit and intent of the license.
And those that don't will not respect any license so ODbL wouldn't help in
these cases.

As you well know, what a licensor says carries weight with users of OSM data
and, potentially, with a judge.  The new license proposal already relies on
this principle and there's no reason to doubt that it applies equally to CC
BY-SA.

It's OK for you to admit that you don't have any actual cases to back up
your assertions that CC BY-SA doesn't work for data, but it's not OK to use
OpenStreetMap as an example of it not working because it quite clearly has
worked very well for over five years.

Do you think OSM would be anything like as successful as it is if the
license totally didn't work?

80n
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20091208/25287888/attachment.html>


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list