[OSM-talk] Results from license debate - assing (c) to OSMF

spaetz osm at sspaeth.de
Thu Jul 19 09:11:31 BST 2007


On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 07:46:14PM +0100, David Earl wrote:
> Let's turn the debate upside down: let's decide what we want the license 
> to do for us, not what (we think or a lawyer thinks) the license 
> requires us to do. The debate then is about what our purpose is rather 
> than the minutiae of the words of someone else's license. We seem always 
> to be unnecessarily bashing ourselves with the most restrictive 
> interpretation of the words rather than asking ourselves what it is we 
> actually want to license to do for us.

I like that approach and bet it's more productive in getting a consensus.

However, it will unfortunately not work as is now. As long as we don't assign copyrights to a single entity, we (community, OSMF or whoever) can clarify as long as they want with no impact. It only takes a single contributor who interpretes the license in a different manner, to sue the user of the data. To compare this to Linux, it doesn't matter what Linus Torvalds thinks or what consensus has been reached, Harald Welte (from gpl-violations.org) can always go after people which *he* thinks misuse his netfilter source code.

So having lawers comb through our license and see how it *can* be interpreted by anybody will still be mandatory.

spaetz
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20070719/023d42f8/attachment.pgp>


More information about the talk mailing list