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

[Julio Costa Zambelli]

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Matt Amos <zerebubuth at gmail.com> wrote:
> OSMF is not moving to "a PD license disguised as BY-SA", OSMF would
> like to move to ODbL. however, it has to be pointed out that CC BY-SA
> might be described as "a PD license disguised as BY-SA", since many
> lawyers (including those at Creative Commons) think that CC BY-SA is
> unsuitable for factual data (such as geodata) and may not be
> enforceable in many jurisdictions (such as the USA).

I know about the problems with (CC)BY-SA, and I also know that ODbL is
supposed to solve those. And unless I am getting lost in translation I
do not have any problem with ODbL, but with the point made by John
Smith about the third condition on the CT ("OSMF agrees to use or
sub-license Your Contents as part of a database and only under the
terms of one of the following licenses: ODbL 1.0 for the database and
DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database; CC-BY-SA 2.0; or
another free and open license").

In the process of approving the change to ODbL the Foundation is
asking us to let it change the license to something that may be PD in
the future. That said the imports that we have made here in Chile are
probably compatible with ODbL but not with letting the foundation
change the license to something "more open" than BY-SA.

Again, risking some misunderstanding with my far from perfect English,
I understand from what you are saying that two problems are trying to
be solved, the unfitness of the (CC)BY-SA license for our kind of
data, and the risk of loosing data in future changes of license.

The thing is that I am all about solving the first but not about
lossing lots of data today speculating about that first solution
failing in the future, risking lots of data then.

The only reason that I see to put that condition there is thinking
about changing the license to PD in the future without asking all the
contributors again.

> whether section 4 is enough to allow CC BY compatibility is something
> that OSMF is currently seeking legal advice on.

I guess this will help, but if the license can be changed in the
future to PD without asking the Gov agency, I am almost sure that they
will not comply with this.

> if (as i hope) the lawyers say that section 4 of the CT ensures
> compatibility with CC BY, why would section 3 pose a problem? if
> section 4 requires that OSMF provide a method of attribution then that
> couldn't be taken away by changes under section 3 unless a new version
> of the CT were released - which would require asking every single
> contributor and re-raising the problem of data loss: the very problem
> that section 3 is supposed to alleviate.

I think this time I actually got lost in translation but as far as I
understand it, the point 4 is useless if it can be discarded without
asking the contributors. Am I getting something wrong?

> migration to PD is not part of the plan. the motivation for that
> section is simply that needs and requirements change over time. when
> the project was started CC BY-SA seemed like a perfectly valid
> license. we're now 6 years on, and 2 years into trying to change the
> license, because we were wrong about CC BY-SA. while we think ODbL is
> far, far better - do we want to have the spectre of data loss again in
> another 6 years if we prove to be wrong again?

I think it is a perfectly reasonable risk in front of a sure damage.

> no-one wants to see any data loss. that's one of the many reasons
> we're moving from a BY-SA license to another BY-SA license. while
> there is an option to declare your preference with regard to PD, this
> is for information only.

It is a BY-SA to BY-SA moving as long as you do not give the OSMF the
right to move to PD (or anything different from BY-SA for this matter)
without asking again.
At this point I do not see any good reason to prefer PD and accept to
consecuences of moving to it.