[Talk-us] Resigning in protest

[Bill Ricker]

On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 6:43 PM, Richard Welty <rwelty at averillpark.net> wrote:
> this change is pretty
> much necessary for OSM to achieve its goals. my new employer runs all
> this stuff through their lawyers; they would probably not approve the
> CCBYSA and probably would approve the new license, as it rather exactly
> addresses the things that they worry about.

My current $DayJob is unlikely to use OSM data* but we likewise have
lawyers review FLOSS licenses same as for commercial licenses, and in
my role I am one of the software people liaising with Legal on these
issues. What we can do with 'copyleft' licenses**  is much more
restricted than things with BY-ish *** or simply CC-ish terms (Apache,
MIT licenses). From that stand-point I see the new license as a great
step forward.

  * (a $DayJob++ which did use OSM data is one of the few upgrades I
can imagine)
 ** (Copyleft is SA for software, GPL is the best known)
*** (and those only if it doesn't require brag screens: BSD2 Ok, BSD1 no)

As to Process:  communications in a volunteer movement is often, if
not alway, deeply flawed. This is to be expected: If we were
communicators not mappers, we'd be in Toastmasters Inc, not in OSM.
The few that are good at both are precious, but may still wish to
spend some of their time mapping!  At least the OSMF is still by and
for the volunteers who choose to upgrade to OSMF membership, and not
run by and for the paid office staff, as so many foundations wind up.
The LWG process appears to have blind-sided some heads-down mappers,
the LWG heard its own message and assumed others did, and has not
chosen to continuously over-communicate outside their list & wiki.
That seems to me a well-intentioned lapse, and might have been
sensible, as continuous argument on all lists might have annoyed More
folks than the seeming blindsiding.
     Why didn't we get much warning here? Lately, talk-us has been
distracted by the urgent necessity of a Chapter, which I will
grudgingly admit has been transparently communicated quite well here,
mostly avoiding misunderstanding (and Kate nipped one or two in the
bud with charming humility).  This may have lead us to expect loud
announcements here on any other changes, but our self selected talk-us
leaders/representatives are busy getting standing to represent us in
license negotiations with Governments, not with OSMF.  If both needed
doing, sooner is better for each. Oh well, murphy strikes again.

I can understand a Process objection, as, although as volunteer
process goes, I'm favorably impressed, that is a matter for personal
opinion and emotion: headsdown mappers who are overtaken by events may
feel real pain this week or soon, and I would not deny that very real
human reaction.

I can understand and respect that someone for whom CCBYSA is a weak
compromise for 'Information wants to be free' who wants to see 19th
Century Intellectual Property concepts whither in the 21st Century
prefer  maximally viral copyleft licences in the meantime. In that
line, I note the PD-User tag proposal, and will give that due
consideration. While agreeing much IP law reform is needed (and that
DMCA & ACTA aren't it), I do wish creatives still be *able* to retain
some rights to their work, whether opt-in or opt-out.

I can understand that someone who sees the slippy map as 'the OSM'
might feel the new license is too weak, but the old saw of "Tag for
the database not the renderer" applies: OSM is the planet.osm file,
not the Mapnik slippy. If someone copyrights an embellished jpg output
by mapnik with their style guide, it harms me not, as I can still
output any Mapnik jpg I like, however similar or different, so long as
I don't sign THEIR name to it.

For the purposes of building a open central single mapping database,
the new license seems well balanced to my jaundiced eye, and fits my
uses better, and will allow the BBC to show our maps.

-- 
Bill
n1vux at arrl.net bill.n1vux at gmail.com