[OSM-talk] License plan

Ben Laenen benlaenen at gmail.com
Fri Feb 27 14:54:48 GMT 2009


On Friday 27 February 2009, Grant Slater wrote:
> Read the full announcement in all its glory:
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-February/001
>958.html
>
> Discussion is best on legal-talk or the avenues as per announcement.

I keep disagreeing. This is important enough to be read by anyone.

> > * why don't you split between the votes whether you like license X
> > and the question whether you're allowing the change of license on
> > your data?
>
> Yes there is a vote for endorsement of the license. See proposed item
> 31st March.

That's an OSMF vote, not a vote from the community. You have no idea at 
that time whether everyone would agree, or perhaps 50% would disagree 
(or not bother to give his or her approval).

> > * I still have no response to the question what would happen with
> > my data if it's derived from someone who doesn't give it's approval
> > for a license change.
>
> What do you think will need to happen?
> How about posting it here:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_I
>ssues

Legally, it should be all removed. Unfortunately there's often no way to 
tell the link bad licensed data → derived data. So we don't even know 
what we'd have to remove. So you'll end up having badly licensed data 
in there after the removal, and I'm pretty worried about that.

> > * "Website to allow users to voluntarily agree to new license.
> > Design allows you to click yes, or if you disagree a further page
> > explaining the position and asking to reconsider as there may be a
> > requirement to ultimately remove the users data. This will help
> > stop people accidentally clicking 'no'. Sign up page now states you
> > agree to license your changes under both CCBYSA and also ODbL."
> >
> > Question: how's that not pushing the new license onto the mappers?
>
> Well we have to start somewhere... If we do not get new members to
> sign-up to both licenses during potential transition, it becomes a
> chicken and egg problem.

That's not the point. I'm talking about the warning: "say no here and 
all your hard work can be gone" (with added note: "oh, and even if you 
answer yes you may see a lot of your data removed if you're unlucky" 
because your yes here automatically implies approval of the license 
change of OSM). I don't mind that you'll ask at that point already 
whether you allow dual license on the existing and new mappers, but you 
should at the same time ask whether they would actually like to see OSM 
change its license or not. These are two completely different issues.

If it turns out that basically all who have voted at that round agrees 
to changing the license, then we can actually give warning "say no here 
and your data may be removed". And after that second round has passed 
it's time to decide to actually move to the new license.

Look, I'm giving no opinion here on whether the new license is good or 
bad (I haven't even read it, it's only available now). I'm just saying 
that you seem to have no concrete plan at all about its exact 
implementation yet and seem to have ignored a lot of issues. And you 
want this license change be done with in three months?

Ben




More information about the talk mailing list