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

[80n]

On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 7:39 AM, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:

> 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.


Do you have some relevant evidence to back this assertion?  I'm not aware of
any case law that is close enough to our situation to have much weight.  I
know about telephone directories and TV listings, but the crux here is the
extent to which the content of the OSM dataset is creative and thus
copyrightable.  Is there any case-law on this that is relevant?


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

Yeah, shit happens, OSM becomes outrageously successful and nobody abuses
the spirit of the license.  What kind of shit is that?


>

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"
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20100717/12e9f45f/attachment.html>