[OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

[80n]

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 6:00 AM, Matt Amos <zerebubuth at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:37 AM, Stefan de Konink <stefan at konink.de> wrote:
> > Matt Amos schreef:
> >> we're talking about moving to another
> >> license with very similar requirements, but a different
> >> implementation, and that's not "open" and "free" anymore? it would
> >> really help me if i could understand your position.
> >
> > Its honestly terribly simple. We get into a discussion over moving from
> > a widely used `GPL2.0' like license that works for everyone, and best of
> > all is compatible with everyone.
>
> it does neither of the above. imagine a situation in which source code
> were considered not to generate copyrights. any project licensed under
> "GPL2.0" would lose protection. this is the situation we're in:
> copyright very probably doesn't apply to our database, yet the license
> we're using is based entirely on copyright.
>
> also, CC BY-SA isn't compatible with everyone. it's compatible with
> PD, attribution-only and itself. the exact same is true of ODbL.
>
> > Some folks here think that BSD style should be our target.
>
> indeed. but wouldn't it be better to find a license which works first,
> then discuss what an even better license might be?
>
> > Now the stearing committee thinks that for better protection we should
> > go for OSI-APPROVED-LICENSE-X; that nobody is compatible with yet and
> > worse. If we were Linux, we would have to remove our cool exotic network
> > card drivers just to facilitate this move. And worst of all, all the
> > nice vendors we were just talking with that were moved to going open are
> > now bound to a contract... that sounds so... formal?
>
> well, such is the nature of legal documents :-(
>
> although, maybe it's familiarity talking, but i find ODbL less formal
> and easier to read than CC BY-SA's legal code.
>
> > Until anyone can guarantee that every bit of CC-BY-SA could be used
> > without problems in the new framework; I'm a skeptic. And basically
> > think about the deletionism in Wikipedia. Or wasting capital in real
> life.
>
> i'm afraid i can't dispel your skepticism, then. it's possible we
> could just keep all the old CC BY-SA data, since the license governing
> it doesn't work, but i think this would be too radical a step for the
> OSMF board ;-)
>

It's shocking that you could even have such a thought.  Nevermind the
smiley.

You've spent many many hours studying the licensing issues and claim to have
a deep understanding of the issues.  If CC BY-SA is as broken as you claim
it is then Google, Navteq, Teleatlas and many others would all have helped
themselves to our data by now.

You can't continue to claim that CC BY-SA is broken without some evidence of
our data being abused.  Put up or shut up, please.

You'll remember that one of the original reasons a license change was even
contemplated was because the license *prevented* people from using the
data.  In what way can a license that is broken actually do that?

Show us the evidence of license abuse please.



>
> our choices are basically the following:
> 1) continue to use a license which legal experts seem to agree doesn't
> work for us.
> 2) move to a new license.
>
> option (2) will likely mean that some data is lost and i don't think
> option (1) is what people really want. which do you prefer?
>
> cheers,
>
> matt
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20091206/f7c814c6/attachment.html>