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

[John Smith]

On 19 July 2010 03:54, SteveC <steve at asklater.com> wrote:
> John, you're painting a dystopian view based on a couple of key things - that 1) nearmap would never change their mind and 2) the 'same thing' could happen at any point.

The email I received from their CEO was fairly definite about the map
data being share alike.

> 1) I think their mind could be changed, maybe by giving them a more positive view on the process that led to this license, the people behind it and so on. Perhaps they have been given a dystopian view of the license?

I never said they didn't agree to the ODBL, but that the new CTs,
specifically section 3, wasn't going to be compatible, even if ODBL
is.

> 2) I don't think anyone wants to start relicensing any time soon after the odbl gets implemented or rejected. I think everyone would want a holiday.

Some people are threatening to have the license changed to CC0
already, how serious they are about that is another matter.

> And anyway, you're comparing it to an absolute situation of status quo - that we all just hum along on CCBYSA because nearmap won't work with us. We can't do that. We all (well nearly all) know that CCBYSA just doesn't work, so you're saying no to the ODbL, no to PD too (because nearmap wont like that either as its not SA)... You can't go through life being a big bag of 'no' like this because nothing will ever happen. The LWG is trying to make a bunch of reasonable decisions that will inevitably disenfranchise some people. They are trying to minimise the number of people disenfranchised and the amount of it, and if you just say 'no' to everything you just look like an unreasonable extremist and risk nobody spending time on your otherwise reasonable points.

I'm not just saying no any more, I'm already past that, if the CTs
aren't amended we are prepared to fork the aussie data, there is just
too much data going to be lost and suddenly things go from OSM having
a whiter than white respect to copyright, to being overly messy,
either cc-by-sa is valid or it isn't and in which case the existing
data carries on.