[OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Sebastian Hohmann wrote:
> I kind of miss the choise of "No, but I consider all my data PD". 
> Because even though any PD data could be also made ODbL, there is no 
> sense in declaring it PD if it's not collected and published as PD. 
> Unless there is a mechanisim in OSM to e.g. "Download only PD data" or a 
> seperate project that collects PD data (which is also put into 
> ODbL-OSM), I don't really see a sense in saying "My data is PD", since 
> it will not make any difference to "My data is ODbL". Or am I wrong?

The PD choice has little legal relevance.

I campaigned for the inclusion of the PD choice because, as a basis for 
future licensing discussions and also questions of interpretation, I 
want to know where the community stands. SteveC & others tirelessly 
claim that there is a share-alike consensus in OSM and I don't believe 
that, and I want the issue put to rest one way or the other.

If we find that 80% of OSMers actually are pro PD then this will not 
change the license one bit, but it might perhaps help reduce some 
share-alike zealotry and we might interpret some things in a more 
relaxed way (and ODbL leaves plenty of room for interpretation, 
concerning the big questions of what is substantial, what is a produced 
work, and what is a derived database).

If, on the other hand, we find that 80% of OSMers would not release 
their data PD but prefer a share-alike license, then we would perhaps 
interpret the same questions with a more rigorous share-alike drift.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"