[Osmf-talk] my views on the ODbL
kakrueger at gmail.com
Thu Dec 10 15:03:41 UTC 2009
On 07/12/2009 09:09, James Livingston wrote:
> On 07/12/2009, at 9:57 AM, Simon Ward wrote:
>> If Openstreetmap’s
>> evolution involves a licence change that most believe to be for the
>> better, why should your data, agreed to be imported with rigid licensing
>> conditions, win?
> The data often doesn't have rigid licensing conditions, in the Australia cases it's CC-BY (not even with -SA), as the only condition is attribution "public domain" (or CC0 etc.) are probably the only less rigid options. The problem isn't that it's incompatible with OpenStreetMap's potential licensing choice (as I believe you would satisfy all the conditions of CC-BY when releasing as ODbL, having attribution) it's the Contributor Terms that cause the issue.
> The contributor terms would let us re-license their data to any arbitrary licence, including one that doesn't require attribution.
If CC-BY is indeed compatible with ODbL, which to me as a layman too
sounds like it should be, and the Australian data is CC-BY, can't this
whole issue be solved by altering the contributor terms slightly?
Could clause 3 rather than say "or another free and open license; which
other free and open license is chosen by a vote of the OSMF membership
and approved by at least a majority vote of active contributors." say
something like "or another free and open license _with attribution_;
..." or what ever works legally and guarantees that the any license that
can be switched to be be compatible with CC-BY? At that point it seems
like anyone could sign the contributor terms for CC-BY licensed data and
we wouldn't loose or have to renegotiate the Australian data, which
would make everyone a lot happier.
More information about the osmf-talk