[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 have never said to any contributors that their data is protected.  The
only stipulation OSM ever made was that contributors had to agree to license
their data in a certain way before they were allowed to upload it.  OSM
would never and could never make any kind of warranty about the protection
of user's contributions.

But, it's an interesting point that maybe ODbL provides the protection that
we all thought CC-BY-SA was giving.  However it fails to do this.  Produced
Works can be released under any license the publisher chooses.  If ODbL was
really trying to fix CC-BY-SA for data (and for us) then it would make much
more sense for Produced Works to only be publishable under a CC-BY-SA
license.

It is clear that ODbL does a lot more than just fix CC-BY-SA so that it
works for data.  Why is that?

80n
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20100717/5b78297a/attachment.html>