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

[80n]

On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:40 PM, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:

> 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.


What's the definition of a large data donor?  Is a dataset of at least
100,000 nodes a reasonable measure?

These donors will have a veto over future relicensing as they will not have
signed up to the contributor terms.  Their data cannot be relicensed without
their explicit permission.  Is this acceptable?



>
>
>  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"
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20100721/96980818/attachment.html>