[OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing

[Morten Kjeldgaard]

On 29/08/2010, at 19.35, Russ Nelson wrote:

> I've re-thought this, and I think that the proper course of action,
> which will do the least damage to the community, is to stay with
> CC-By-SA.  First, because all the data in OSM is already licensed
> under that license.  Second, because it will do minimum damage to the
> community (the discussion here is evidence that the community WILL be
> badly harmed by relicensing).  Third, because if the worst thing that
> happens is that the CC-By-SA turns out to be unenforcible, then the
> data will be in the public domain.  For the reasons I listed above,
> that's not a bad thing.
>
> Community first, license second.

Thank you!

I agree completely. I have no set opinions on one license vs. the  
other. I think that ODbL is probably more appropriate license, and  
that would be the one to use if the OSM project was started today.  
However, I see the license change as very disruptive and not good at  
all for the communtiy. Not because of one license is better than the  
other, but because of the disturbance it creates in an otherwise  
enthusiastic and industrious community. I can live with CC-By-SA... I  
really don't care that much.

Changing the license at this point in a successful project is like  
building a houise, and then deciding you want to change all the bricks  
because you don't like the colour of the old ones. Perhaps it is true  
that the house is not as pretty as it could have been, but it is a  
hopeless endeavour, full of problems  and without much gain.

Cheers,
Morten