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

[Frederik Ramm]

John,

John Smith wrote:
> And this is why Frederik wants to get rid of data imports, because it
> reduces the chances of getting a PD dataset by stealth or "feature
> creep"

Maybe if you'd scale back your demagogy a bit. The subject you chose for 
this thread is offensive enough.

Nothing here happens stealthily. My main concern is not that data 
imports are a hindrance towards going PD (an estimated 95% of imported 
data is PD and thus irrelevant in this question). My main concern is 
that people, among them you as one of the loudest, use existing data 
imports as a *reason* to try and stop our move to the better ODbL. And I 
say again, if we have to decide between "keep imports" and "move to 
ODbL", then let's start to rip out those imports *today* because they 
are a dead weight that keeps us from moving ahead.

There is a clause in the contributors terms that allows the license to 
be changed by a 2/3 majority of active contributors, to another free and 
open license.

2/3 of active contributors is a pretty damn large group of people who 
would all have to agree. That's an immensely high hurdle. The license 
has to be free and open. There is no other restriction, and John is 
right in saying that this would technically even allow a move to PD.

This is not a planned move to PD, or some stealthy maneouvre by anybody 
in the license working group. This is just what any sane person would 
do: Leave the door open; give yourself an spectrum of choices that is as 
broad as possible in the future so you can react to a changing situation.

We are seeing now that license change is a very difficult process with 
lots of problems, one that damages the community as well as the data.

At the same time, we have absolutely no idea what the world is going to 
look like 10 years from now. If neither the mood in the community nor 
the outside world change - then why should our license.

However, it is quite possible that the geodata world changes 
drastically. For example, it might be possible that courts rule that 
geodata doesn't carry any copyright and in consequence, more and more 
governments follow the US lead and just make their data available as PD 
(including, let's assume that for a moment, governments in Australia and 
Chile). If that happens, then OSM still has better data because we have 
lots of people working on it, but we'd be seeing more and more 
"competition" - potential OSM users preferring to use other data sources 
which are only half as good but have no restrictions. In such a world, I 
could envisage a large majority of OSMers saying: "Let's drop that 
stupid share-alike license which nobody really understands anyway, and 
become as free as the rest of the world already is."

(Remember: We're here to create a free world map because there is no 
free world map at the moment. What we do is *more free* than what all 
the others are doing. - Can you imagine a time when people say "oh well 
there's OSM which as a few more footways but it comes with all that 
license hassle, I'll rather use the free government data.")

This is of course only one potential reason for changing the license in 
the future. Other reasons would include ODbL turning out to be 
unworkable for some reason or other, or the legal situation with regards 
to geodata changing in some other direction. And of course *any* change 
in license is thinkable, as long as it remains free and open.

Anything we try to cement now will be with us until the end of the 
project. The current CT are written in a way that makes us entrust the 
future of OSM to those who are active mappers at any future time - it 
will be their project, and through democratic elections to the OSMF 
board and the license change process envisaged in the CT, they will get 
the chance to shape the license in the way that is best for the project 
then.

I consider myself a bright guy, but I would never presume that I can 
today make an intelligent decision that would still be "right" for the 
project and its members in 10 years. And the *least* I would do is base 
such a decision on a little data that I have imported from a source 
which might be unhappy with what the project wants to do in 10 years' time.

In theory one could seek to limit the license change rules in the CT, 
for example by adding that the chosen license must not only be free and 
open, but also "have an attribution component". Superficially, this 
might solve your pet problem, namely ensuring eternal compatibility with 
data you have taken from the Australian government. (A government that 
is not unlikely to, by the time the project might contemplate another 
license change, have gone through several license changes themselves.) 
But the next think you'll ask is whether that "attribution component" is 
enough. Surely evil Frederik is already plotting to have the attribution 
listed only in some obscure planning department on Alpha Centauri! We 
need to make this clear... and sooner rather than later you'll end up 
codifying a copy of CC-BY (or CC-BY-SA).

This whole topic is highly complex, and is ill-served by the kind of 
placative fearmongering which, sadly, seems to be your style. There's no 
moving forward with a mindset like yours; it's all just hedging what we 
have and not going anywhere. ODbL is an important investment in our 
future as a project. Try to sabotage it at all our peril.

Bye
Frederik

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