[Osmf-talk] ODbL switchover at SOTM, bad idea

Michael Collinson mike at ayeltd.biz
Sat Sep 1 14:33:13 UTC 2012

On 31/08/2012 17:05, THEVENON Julien wrote:
> *>>>> De :* Christian Quest <cquest at openstreetmap.fr 
> <mailto:cquest at openstreetmap.fr>>
> *>>>> *I fully agree with Frederik.
> *>>>> *I don't understand why the Board would put any pressure.
> *>>>> *Please, please, don't ruin long term with short term.
> *>>>> *Thanks in advance.
> +1
> The OSMF must be irreproachable, particulary considering that this its 
> responsability to make OSM licence be respected

I believe we have a reasonable procedure in place. The LWG set a number 
of criteria at the end of July which we want satisfied before we will 
make a formal recommendation that the license be changed. We are not 
under any board pressure to do that prematurely and have not done so 
yet. On the other hand, we did not want things to drag on forever and so 
we set up a specific checklist. As things stand today, there is a very 
good chance that everything is going to be ticked and SOTM will make a 
great venue to do the formal change-over amongst fellow OSM-ers.  Things 
outside the checklist, we feel and have discussed, can be finalised post 
change-over. In particular, that if there are further claims of non-ODbL 
material in the database after July 31st, that they be dealt with as 
part of a normal take-down procedure.

The first thing we wanted were tests that the redaction bot and its 
rules worked properly from a technical point of view. Ticked.  
Everything we have looked at was either a non-issue or was due to other 

The next thing we wanted was to see that if we claims of copyright 
infringement, then the OSMF volunteers and the OSM community has 
sufficient tools and processes to actually do a proper analysis and take 
any action required in reasonable time.  I think that has resulted in 
some blood and sweat for some of our technical volunteers, but it has 
worked and tools have and are being improved for general purpose use 
going forward. A big, big thanks to all concerned.

We also wanted to improve our take-down system so that if there are 
vestigal cases that need investigating there is a uniform place to go.  
We've filed updated details with the United States Copyright Office and 
this and other information can be found here: 
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Takedown_procedure . Frederik 
has raised this as specific issue and I am reviewing everything we have 
this weekend. A special email address is already working and an on-line 
web form will go live shortly.

Lastly, we wanted to clear any infringement claims made by July 31st, 
i.e, to say that it has been investigated and either report that there 
is nothing wrong or that material has been redacted/reverted.  This is 
where we are now.   Each specific claim has been looked at.  I am not 
100% but I think that is everything, not just to July 31st.  As a result 
some extra redaction processes are under way.  Most have already 
finished.  There is no guarentee, but the ones the LWG wants to see 
finish may do so in a few hours.  In that case, I will get a consensus 
opinion of LWG members on whether to send our recommendation. Input from 
other working groups also welcome.

I hope that helps discussion.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20120901/d5c27b00/attachment.html>

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list