[OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

Peteris Krisjanis pecisk at gmail.com
Sun Aug 8 13:06:44 BST 2010


2010/8/8 Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemed.net>:
>
> Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
>> I respect PD guys, but in overall, I start to grow to openly
>> dislike their attitude.
>
> Could you cite who these alleged PD guys are, please? Thanks in advance.

Sorry, it wasn't meant PD supportive persons in OSM in general.
However, you could admit that there is group of vocal PD supporters
who see CT as way to move to PD in the future. Again, I'm not against
PD, but chosen way.

> I'm getting increasingly exasperated with people projecting this big
> bogeyman (or strawman. A big man made out of straw bogeys) of PD onto what's
> meant to be a debate about exchanging one share-alike licence for another
> share-alike licence.

Well, I hope it is so. Because I'm not against ODbL.

> PD has nothing to do with it. Full stop. OSM is a share-alike project and is
> always going to be a share-alike project. We were trying to talk about ODbL
> (remember that?) before the conspiracy theorists waded in.

Conspiracy theory was fuelled by some people who directly said that
Section 3 is really intended as gateway to PD. Maybe it was/still is
overreacting, but there are some reasoning behind this.

> As someone who personally prefers PD this saddens me, not least because I
> can see the trend in geodata is for ever more permissive licensing and that
> OSM is therefore going to be out on a limb in ten years' time, probably with
> a bunch of local, permissively-licensed projects chipping away at it. But
> there's a difference between "what should be" and "what can be", and
> seriously, the chances of getting this fractious community to agree to a PD
> relicensing is nil. Never. That much should be obvious to anyone who has
> read the mailing lists at any point in the last five years. It isn't going
> to happen.

Problem is not with PD - I want to release my collected data under PD
as next guy. However, I work with lot of governmental/regional sources
and they need at least a attribution. We can try to work on political
level to get all geographical data collected using government
financing released under PD, but it will require some time.

> At this point someone will mention the relicensing clause in the Contributor
> Terms. It is my opinion that this is unnecessary: the "any future version"
> clauses in both CC-BY-SA and ODbL should be adequate. I've told LWG this and
> they're considering it. (See
> https://docs.google.com/View?id=dc3bxdhs_3d3ws9sgn point 5.)

This is main point why I got worried. I really hope LWG will support
your suggestion.

Thanks for your comment,
Cheers,
Peter.




More information about the talk mailing list