Fwd: [OSM-talk] BSD/CC-by/LGPL vs. SharedAlike - decide now and forever

[Andy Robinson]

Lars Aronsson wrote:
>Sent: 22 March 2006 06:51
>To: talk at openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: Fwd: [OSM-talk] BSD/CC-by/LGPL vs. SharedAlike - decide now
>and forever
>
>Immanuel Scholz wrote:
>
>> > I don't know what it would take in practice to enforce
>> > this transfer of freedom.
>>
>> I think there are two parts required: Specify a license that
>> allow as many people as possible to access the data *and* to
>> restrict other people so they cannot suppress the community
>> making advantage of the data.
>>
>> I think a viral license like CC-By-Sa or GPL fit for both. BSD
>> likes only provide the first part well.
>
>
>Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the word "enforce"?
>
>Case 1: I release my data in the public domain and somebody uses
>it for a derived work, and they don't publish the source to the
>derived work.  This is OK, because I released my data in the PD.
>
>Case 2: I release my data under CC-SA-BY and somebody uses it for
>a derived work, and they don't publish the source to the derived
>work.  This is not OK, it is a violation of the license.  But they
>don't care.
>
>There is a clear risk that the practical outcomes of cases 1 and 2
>are identical.  If people can just ignore the licensing terms and
>get away with it, the choice of license is meaningless.
>Enforcing the license means achieving a real, practical difference
>in the outcome, such as making these violators comply with the
>license by releasing their data, or pay damages, or go to jail.
>Just going to the police station and filling out a form, reporting
>the crime, is not going to help me.  The prosecutor will say "case
>closed" before I leave the building, and the violators will laugh
>out loud. I will have to pay lawyers, some lawyers that understand
>CC licensing issues.  And I will have to prove that the derived
>work was based on my data.  How much does this cost in time and
>money?  Is it feasible?
>

I'm sure that nobody really believes that any licence stops people
infringing the terms of those licences. Just look at software, DVD and music
piracy. All are illegal but on the wide scale whole are not enforced. Those
that do enforce are those that stand to loose (mostly financially) from the
infringement. As a result most of the court cases involve companies with a
lot of money chasing persons or businesses trying to make a lot of money
from the infringement.

I don't think OSM fits into a real need for enforcement, rather in my view
the licence is a statement of what OSM strives to be. If on the otherhand
the OS decided to use OSM data as its new-detail layer, and then charge us
for its maps under its traditional licence, then may be we would have
something to say about it ;-)



>Imi, I know you have practical experience from writing software.
>I know the Opentom people have practical experience from enforcing
>the GPL.  But who has any practical experience from enforcing
>CC-SA-BY for map data?  Anybody on this planet?  I doubt that.
>
>> > Imi and other GPL fundamentalists need to explain the *practical*
>> > differences between licensing options *for map data*.
>>
>> 1) may redistribute our data for free.
>> 2) must put published modifications of the data under same license.
>> 3) must put published deriverates (maps, things created using the data)
>> under same license.
>> 4) must provide the "source" (vector data or even raw gps tracks) that
>> lead to published deriverates
>>
>> Public domain: 1)
>> BSD-like: 1) and 2)
>> CC-By-Sa: 1), 2) and 3)
>> GPL: everything.
>
>I'm sorry, but this is a completely theoretical analysis, and has
>nothing at all to do with the practical details of enforcement.
>
>
>
>--
>  Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
>  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
>
>_______________________________________________
>talk mailing list
>talk at openstreetmap.org
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk


Andy