[OSM-talk-be] ODBL

[Gerard Vanderveken]

Renaud MICHEL wrote:

>Hello
>On dimanche 25 septembre 2011 at 14:23, Jo wrote :
>  
>
>>I'm sending the following message to everybody who hasn't decided yet. Up
>>to now I sent it to all contributors who still have 1-150 elements in
>>the database in Belgium. From those I managed to have 8 extra people who
>>agreed. That's not all that much, but it's better than nothing.
>>Especially since their contributions form part of a chain. I've been
>>sending out messages like these before, which resulted in 4-5 people who
>>agreed.
>>    
>>
>[...]
>  
>
>>OSM changes its license. Could you please check whether you can agree to
>>release your contributions under the ODBL? The idea behind the license is
>>mostly the same as with CC-BY-SA. ODBL is more suited for a database,
>>which is what Openstreetmap is, at the core.
>>If you can't agree to the new license and contributor terms, your
>>contributions will have to be removed to move forward. This may have
>>consequences when people have built further on elements that you touched.
>>All their efforts may have been in vain as well.
>>For people like me who would like to try and save as much as possible
>>data, it means we have to put in inordinate amounts of time to sort out
>>what can be saved and what needs to be dropped.
>>So, please, log in for a moment on www.openstreetmap.org and indicate
>>whether you agree or not to the new license and contributor terms.
>>    
>>
>
>This is not accurate, no decision has been taken (yet) to change the license 
>from CC-BY-SA to ODbL. What is being asked now is to accept the 
>contributor's term which grant a wider right to the OSMF by allowing it to 
>relicense one's contributions if 2/3 of active mappers agree on the new 
>license.
>The current target is ODbL, but maybe ten years in the future the community 
>at that time may choose another license that they consider more appropriate.
>
>So by accepting the new CT, the contributors must actually have the required 
>rights on all their contributions to grant this to the OSMF.
>
>For example, in the case of data contributed by some administration or 
>private enterprise, the person who imported them in OSM must be sure he is 
>allowed to accept the CT (some people explicitly refused the CT because of 
>such problem).
>
>cheers
>
That is also not accurate.
Actually, You are accepting both, and the new OdbL license for your 
existing and future contributions,  and the new contributor terms, which 
makes it easier to change the license again, if there is a reason to do so.
For this change from CC-BY-SA to OdbL, everyone has to give its 
acceptance, for changing to another (that would be then the third) 
license a 2/3 majority is sufficient.
There is no  license change from OdbL in the short future necessary or 
foreseen, and so these contributor terms aren't strictly needed now, but 
it is a good provision to be ready in a distant future for a 
modernisation of the OdbL  license should it be needed, and then the 
transition will be much smoother by this majority principle.
See in detail:
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/We_Are_Changing_The_License#What_Are_The_Choices.3F

Regards,
Gerard.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-be/attachments/20110925/23d4f6e3/attachment.htm>