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

[Heiko Jacobs]

Michael Barabanov schrieb:
 > 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?

You mean "where is the problem in this two cases?"?

Frederik Ramm schrieb:
 > In other words, we were wrong, we chose the wrong license
 > out of ignorance. Shit happens.

So subtract the shit,
but without adding new shit by subtracting any data ...

 > 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

With the changing process proposed my data isn't safe if it is
partially based on work of mapper who said no or who is away.
And whole data I want to use in other areas is also not safe anymore

 > 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.

The process proposed is also not a base of trust if data of mappers,
who said yes, is lost.

Michael Barabanov schrieb:
> Thanks for the explanation.  BTW, I think "pirate" is quite an 
> overstatement in this context. The proposed license is still a free/open 
> license.  Plus I kind of suspect that most contributors care about 
> potential data loss more than CC license vs ODBL license,

+1

> but I may be wrong. 

-1 ;-)

> Still, let me advance the "rotten" line of thought a bit. Not 
> that I'm advocating for anything.
> 
> 1. OSMF does change the license without any regard; people who are 
> against ODBL get pissed off and stop contributing (lost for OSM?). No 
> data loss from the database.

> 2. OSMF does not do that; contributions of people who are against ODBL 
> are deleted, people who are against ODBL stop contributing anyway.  
> Potential data loss.

Not only potential data loss: data loss *guaranteed* for mappers,
which cannot be reached (and mappers said no to change of licence).

 >  We've no idea how big,

> there're technical issues for identifying the data to be removed

There are no solution possible.
Think about history function in case of splitted or joined ways.
And what about a way, mapped by A with 3 points and highway=path
and B sets a fourth point in the middle and add surface=... smoothness=...
Who is the true holder of copyright of the way and first three points?
And so on ...

> 3. Of course, there's a third possibility where everyone just loves ODBL 
> and so it's a win-win. Wouldn't that be nice.

Then there is still the problem of the mappers we could not contact...

4. Because of data loss we stay with CC.

I saw anywhere in the deeps of discussion at legal, that also
the new licence does not protect data in australia ...? Mmmmh ...

Mueck