On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 12:08:47AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: > But are my negative feelings about the share-alike aspect any less > important than yours? Share-alike advocates have more clout legally
I think there is a clear asymmetry here : the project has always operated under a share alike license. So yes I think that the concerns of those who came on board because of this weigh heavier that those who came on board despite of this. > No I wouldn't. What I wanted to say is: Say I want a map of South > London but the South London main contributor has not made the license > switch. I will take the data from the current project and merge it > with the out-of-date stuff that was CC-BY-SA licensed, and get a nice > map, voila. The map will of course be CC-BY-SA but that doesn't hurt, > at least I have got nice map of South London, so I am not worse off > than before the switch. For me, as a user, the South London data is > not lost. I remain unconvinced of the reality of this scenario. The effort to create tools to merge two distinct datasets is not trivial. > > And in the interest of NPOV I think you should also take into account > > the AND data. It is a substantial contribution by a single party > > with important commercial interests in keeping map data out of PD. > Is that just speculation on your part, or do you have first-hand > information from AND about that? My current information is that nobody > has ever tried to convince AND to release their data PD, so how can we > know? I think everything in my paragraph was factual : AND has made a substantial contribution. AND is a single party. AND has commercial interests to keep map data out of PD. Where is the speculation? If I were a speculating man, I would speculate about the motives of the people who advocate a license change. > While we're speculating: I'm not even sure if AND would support a > switch to another share-alike license. Is it not possible that they > meanwhile had second thoughts about the usefulness of the whole deal > with us, and would use such a license change as a convenient opt-out > possibility? Could very well be. > For the AND argument to be NPOV, we would have to have a solid > statement from AND that (a) they wouldn't support PD and (b) they > would support ODC. If any of these two, or both of them, are missing, > then AND cannot be used as an argument in the discussion. I think you forgot a 3th option which is actually the one I would prefer : leave everything as it is. At least for that option we know their answer : no objection. For the interest of clarity my personal opinion - I would prefer no license change at all - I would have little or no problems relicensing my work under the ODC license, but I am not convinced this brings me any advantages - I would have severe problems to relicense my work as PD but I don't know if those objections would be severe enough to actually withdraw my work from the OSM project cu bart _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
