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

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Michael Barabanov wrote:
> Rather than receiving questions back, some actual answers to direct 
> questions about adding SA-like requirement to CT would be nice.

Well I have already said that I am against it, and I have given the 
reasons. We have a large PD community in OSM - exactly how large is 
unclear. The whole relicensing process has never even considered letting 
the user base decide to switch to a PD, or attribution-only license; it 
was clear from day one that we'd be looking for share-alike. That is a 
thorn in the side of many PD advocates (not the fact that OSM is not 
going PD, but the fact that OSMF hasn't even bothered to find out what 
contributors want), and there are enough for them to make a fuss, if not 
derail the license change process altogether.

The proposed license change makes two concessions to the PD advocates. 
One is that you get a (symbolic) chance of officially declaring your 
contribution PD. This does not have legal relevance, as you cannot 
extract PD data from an ODbL protected database without triggering 
ODbL's share-alike, but at least the PD faction can make their voices 
heard. The other is that the contributor agreement does not completely 
rule out moving to PD at a later time, if a large enough majority of OSM 
contributors should favour that.

These two concessions are really minor and are a long way from actually 
making anything in OSM PD. They are certainly not a victory for the PD 
faction, but they are a token of respect towards them, and they will 
make many a PD advocate accept the new license. These concessions are 
about building consensus, they are the result of people sitting around a 
(virtual) table and trying to find a way forward together that can be 
carried by everyone.

If you now want to remove even that smallest bit of respect towards a 
large number of contributors, you risk upsetting the delicate balance 
that has been found. Faced with cementing SA forever, PD advocates will 
demand a proper vote ("do you (a) want to go PD, (b) go ODbL, (c) not go 
anywhere") instead of the current version.

I strongly advise anyone not to re-open that can of worms.

If NearMap imagery is so important for OSM in Australia - and there are 
countries which have been mapped very well without aerial imagery of 
note - then let's make an exception for NearMap, let's include their 
data without them signing the CT. This would mean that if at any later 
time the license is changed, NearMap would have to be asked specifically 
if they like that license. I assume that this is something we will have 
to do for some other sources as well.

No reason to drop or modify the CT for everybody because of that.

Bye
Frederik

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