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

SteveC steve at asklater.com
Mon Dec 7 16:54:38 GMT 2009


On Dec 6, 2009, at 2:03 AM, 80n wrote:

> 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.

No, because there is social pressure too.

> 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.

Absence of evidence...

Yours &c.

Steve





More information about the talk mailing list