[OSM-talk] OT: Re: License

[rob at robmyers.org]

Quoting Tom Chance <tom at acrewoods.net>:

> The Foundation should hire a lawyer to get as-near as-possible 
> definitive answers to these questions, rather than amateur 
> cartographers going round in circles debating interpretations of 
> copyright law. Having studies copyright law during my postgrad 
> philosophy studies I'll happily say that I don't know nearly enough 
> of the intricacies across jurisdictions to make sensible statements. 
> The lawyer should be asked to answer these questions for a variety of 
> licensing scenarios, too. Only then can we make informed choices and 
> stop this counterproductive, recurrent discussion from swallowing all 
> of our time.

This is absolutely vital. Amateur legal opinion is like amateur medical 
opinion:
it's almost always wrong and can be very harmful.

> If it needs fundraising then let's do that.

I can't contribute much but I will gladly contribute.

If anyone is based in London then it might just be possible to ask ArtLaw for
help.

Quoting Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org>:

> (Incidentally, isn't it hypocritical to call something "free" if it
> comes with tons of strings attached of what you are and are not
> allowed to do with it, and what you must do if you use it in your
> work and so on?

Copyleft licenses rarely prevent people from doing anything. They just prevent
people from preventing other people from doing anything, that is they prevent
people from being hypocrites.

This is more of an irony than a hypocracy, and it is a common irony in
discussions of freedom. John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" is the classic
exploration of this.

- Rob.