[OSM-talk] Transition to CC-4 instead of destroying data

[Eric Marsden]

>>>>> "rw" == Richard Weait <richard at weait.com> writes:

  rw> If CCv4 ends up being better than ODbL, and agreeable to the osm
  rw> community at large, we could certainly transition to it. The new CTs
  rw> would make that transition relatively smooth.  We can make that call
  rw> when it's ready.

  Thanks for your reply. I would like to suggest that two recent
  developments mentioned in this thread (update on the CC-4 process and
  possibility for a seamless transition for OSM; legal analysis
  provided by Ed Avis) be examined by the LWG, to decide whether to
  proceed with the current timetable for deletion of CC-only data.

  As I understand it, the push for ODbL was motivated primarily by two
  concerns:

  (1) the risk of nasty people "ripping off" data due to uncertainty over
      whether copyright applies to the OSM database in the USA

  (2) poor applicability of CC-BY-SA to derived works such as maps

  My reading of the legal analysis posted by Ed Davis is that concern
  (1) is not as strong as it seemed previously. (I also feel that the
  threat of "shaming" violators of the spirit of the OSM licence is a
  sufficient disincentive to ripping off, and further tend to agree with
  Russ Nelson's argument concerning the value of community, or living
  data over dead data.) 

  Concern (2) could perhaps be (partially) addressed by clarification on
  the website concerning the way in which the project suggests that the
  notion of derived work be handled in specific use cases; I believe
  that in many jurisdictions, the intent of a licence is as important as
  its precise wording. We can also hope that CC4 handles this better (in
  2013 or 2014). 


  In my opinion, these two concerns are greatly outweighed by the 
  destruction of huge amounts of data, useless remapping work and
  demotivation of many contributors which are certain consequences of
  the current plan for deleting CC-only data.

-- 
Eric Marsden