[talk-au] [sharedmapau] Re: Re-entering data to avoid licensing failure

[Richard Weait]

On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 10:34 PM, Andrew Laughton
<laughton.andrew at gmail.com> wrote:
> I must be missing something here, I thought the whole point of the licence
> change was to allow commercial companies to take advantage of the
> communities data.
> Specifically Microsoft & Bing.

[from a reply I posted on talk@ the other day. It covers the state of
play with CCv4 and motivation behind the license upgrade.]

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Eric Marsden <eric.marsden at free.fr> wrote:
> Creative Commons recently confirmed that the next version of its
> licences will attempt to cover sui generis database rights. Version 4.0
> is planned to be available at the end of 2012. This was previously
> mentioned here as a possible alternative to the destructive ODbL
> process.
>
> I don't see any discussion of this in recent LWG minutes. Has
> it been considered?

This is a question that has been around for a while and deserves a
reply with some context.

Creative Commons told us that we shouldn't use their license for data.
 That started this process years ago.  OSM approached CC about
drafting a data license as we thought that was the best way to
proceed.  Some initial work on what became ODbL was with CC involved,
but then CC stepped aside as data was not their core interest.

Open Data Commons became part of the Open Knowledge Foundation and
development of ODbL continued, was drafted and revised in consultation
with the OSM community and others interested in open data.

Now CC are talking about v4 and data.  CC are also in touch with the
OSM community at large; we see posts from folks there on osm lists
periodically.  And two folks from CC spoke with LWG on conference
calls this year.  They invited the OSM community to participate in the
drafting of v4, and we should.

They also said that their last revision took two years.

If CCv4 ends up being better than ODbL, and agreeable to the osm
community at large, we could certainly transition to it. The new CTs
would make that transition relatively smooth.  We can make that call
when it's ready.

Best regards,
Richard (from my recollection of discussions at LWG)