[OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

John Smith wrote:
> On 17 July 2010 13:07, Michael Barabanov <michael.barabanov at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Consider two cases:
>>
>> 1. Current license does not cover the OSM data (I think that's the OSMF
>> view).  In this  case, OSMF can just change to ODBL without asking anyone.
>> 2. Current license does cover the OSM data. Then there's no need to change.
>>
>> Where's the issue?
> 
> I made that exact point above some time ago and people umm'd and arr'd
> and didn't give me a straight answer...

The answer is quite simply actually.

For a long time we assumed that the current license did indeed work, and 
we essentially told everyone who signed up that their data was 
protected. They trusted us and assumed we had chosen the license well.

We now know that anybody, at least in most jurisdictions and if he has a 
decent-sized legal budget and has not respect for ethics (i.e. is 
sufficiently evil), can effectively use our data as if it were 
unprotected. In other words, we were wrong, we chose the wrong license 
out of ignorance. Shit happens.

This does not mean that *we* should throw our sense of what's right and 
what's wrong over board and become evil. Taking the data now and 
relicensing it without asking those whom we have, for years, assured 
that their data was safe under the license we chose for them would 
amount to betraying these people, and would not form the basis of trust 
we need to continue to build a good community.

It is beyond me how anyone can even suggest that we effectively pirate 
our own data and use this as a basis for a healthy project.

No "umm" and "arr" from my side - just plain disbelief at such a rotten 
idea.

Bye
Frederik

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