[OSM-talk] CC-BY-SA still available?

[Ed Avis]

Michael Collinson <mike <at> ayeltd.biz> writes:

>In addition to Dermot's comments, we initially considered dual-licensing 
>CC-BY-SA but, yes, regretfully rejected it as it undermines a major 
>objective of the license change which is to provide the strongest 
>protection of OSM geodata in as many jurisdictions as possible.

Thanks for your reply.  I understand that those in charge of this matter
do not think that a CC-BY-SA/ODbL dual licence is the optimal answer from a
purely legal point of view.  I don't expect I would be able to persuade them
otherwise, any more than they would be able to persuade me and others away
from our view that staying with CC-BY-SA only is the best option.

My point is that the final scheme chosen should reflect the whole project
and try as far as possible to include everyone.  It's not a case of simply
picking the 'best' answer and then pushing it through, but of finding a balanced
compromise that everyone can agree too.

By excluding contributors who don't agree with the new scheme you are wielding
a very sharp stick.  That makes it important to be very restrained in what you
try to push through.  It would not be a good idea to set a precedent that the
OSMF should simply push through the 'best' answer and exclude dissenters.  One
day, you might find yourself on the other side of the stick.

So while I understand that the great and the good who have considered the
licensing question did not favour dual licensing as the ideal solution, it may
nonetheless be the right compromise.  You are asking a great deal of people
who joined the project in good faith to make a free, CC-licensed map of the
world, not controlled by any single body.  They would have to compromise a
fair bit to accept the new licence and the new way of working, where the
OSMF has the final say over licensing.  If it appears that you aren't willing
to compromise on any point at all - not even to allow use of the older licence
as an option - then it is less likely that contributors will feel ready to make
the necessary compromises on their side.  There has to be a bit of give and take
from both sides, even if only a small bit.

I'd also like to note that of the two big examples given of major and successful
relicensings - Mozilla and Wikipedia - in both cases the old licence continues
to be available as an option for those who want it.

-- 
Ed Avis <eda at waniasset.com>