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

Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org
Tue Jul 20 23:40:24 BST 2010


Hi,

Kai Krueger wrote:
> However, it is also not possible to incorporate any datasources
> such as e.g. OSM that are compatible with ODbL, as the CT prevent that as it
> may move to PD.

I think we have already agreed on having to have exceptions for large 
imports, i.e. there will be some data in OSM for which the CT are not 
valid. This will be required whatever wording you choose for the license 
upgrade path because some data donors do not want to sign up to the unknown.

> So with respect to "concessions to the PD crowd", I think this is
> unacceptable, as it destroys a large part of what OSM is today.

If at any time "a large part of what OSM is today" is imported data 
please let me know as I'd like to quit then. OSM is about people and 
community, not about megabytes!

> Therefore I
> would much rather see as a consession a strengthening of the first point,
> i.e. the "I consider my data to PD" actually mean something and that one can
> somehow extract "clean" PD data (however you end up technically and legally
> defining clean) indeed as PD data.

That would be most welcome.

> However, I am not sure that the term in the CT was originally meant as a way
> to switch to PD or change the nature of the license in any other way.

I think it was meant to basically keep your options open should ODbL 
turn out to be bad, or should the environment (or the project) change in 
a way that ODbL was deemed no longer suitable. Any requirement we put in 
the CT is very likely to stick with us forever so it case to be very 
thoroughly evaluated. 10 years from now, OSM will still be bound by what 
we put in there (if OSM still exists then).

> That line of argument is imho very reasonable and one therefore well worth
> having, but somehow we also need to find a way to make it more compatible
> with more free and open licenses such as the rather liberally licensed
> Ordanance Survey data, or the Australian CC-BY. 

Would not trying to become compatible with a license that *we* think 
doesn't work for OSM incur all sorts of trouble?

> This brings us back to the
> originally question of this topic. Will (or can) adding a "Attribution
> Clause" in the CT make the construct of ODbL and CT compatible with more
> free and open licenses  such as CC-BY and thus allow us to retain more data?

The original question of this topic, as mentioned in the subject, was 
not adding an attribution clause in the CT, but adding a share-alike 
clause, which is a whole different ball game.

> I am not sure a SA clause would help here, as moving to a different SA
> license would still make it incompatible, so you would still not be able to
> agree to the CT for a SA licensed source, but I would hope that situation
> looks a little more promising for attribution only licenses. 

I think adding something about attribution, if properly marketed towards 
what you call "the PD crowd", could be acceptable.

Bye
Frederik

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




More information about the talk mailing list