[OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing "free and open license"

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
> That would indicate that PD lovin, SA hatin guys will try to "stuffin
> committee" method to push OSM in "right direction"? :)

The Contributor Terms have been carefully crafted to make sure that 
anyone who wants to push OSM in what they perceive is the "right 
direction" will have to have a large majority.

> Harsh joke of course, but I really fail to see how after two very cut
> and clear SA licenses like CC-BY-SA and ODBL OSM suddenly will adapt
> non-SA license

I don't think it is likely either, but this coming license change is the 
first time we ever actually ask our mappers what they think about PD, so 
we have very little evidence to support any claim about this.

> and everyone
> wants PD (which practically non-SA means) 

No, there is, for example a large group of attribution licenses in between.

> Even more - why do you need such terms when
> you have ODBL, which have very painfully long history of creation?
> What is practical goal here? We will change license for OSM data every
> 5 years now?

The LWG has come out clearly *for* having the contributor terms in spite 
of the problems they may cause in some ways, precisely because nobody 
has ever implemented ODbL on a grand scale and it is quite possible that 
doing so will uncover problems unthought of. A license change clause 
makes sure we can react if required.

> "It would only further alienate those who don't like SA."
> 
> Is there any actual mapper who strictly don't like SA? 

Oh yes, just read these lists. Only two days ago someone suggested that 
all PD advocates make it a condition of their acceptance of ODbL that 
everyone else also accepts PD for the objects touched by PD advocates. A 
convoluted idea which I disliked, but which proves that there are indeed 
PD advocates whom we have to win over and who won't just go along with 
ODbL because they don't care. Some fight for a "free as in PD" cause 
much like others fight for "free as in share-alike".

> So far I have
> only heard it from business people. 

Then where have you been the last years? There's not a day where you 
don't have somebody on the lists saying "I wish it were PD that would be 
so much easier for everyone".

It is an often-repeated story that businesspeople were licking their 
lips for us to go PD and then rip us off. I think that's scaremongering 
(easy enough to use our stuff and give nothing back even today!). Au 
contraire, some businesses, especially smaller ones, actually derive 
protection from a share-alike license because it makes sure they cannot 
easily be marginalised by the big fish.

Bye
Frederik

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