Andy Robinson wrote on 20/02/2008 10:01:16 AM: > We need to have a license that better > protects the OSM data and clarifies how the data can be used so that > the project can effectively deliver what it set out to deliver. ... > OSM never started out as a PD project so why would we think that it > would be better to recommend it go PD now?
A reason might be that the licencing of OSM data involves areas of unsettled law, and it is far from clear how the new licence will effectively achieve the objectives the old licence failed to deliver. We may be in the same situation in a few years (months?) time - with no effective protection for the data, but uncertainty as to what use is permitted, and requiring updates to our licencing and hunting down users again. Finding a different lawyer, with yet another opinion. PD solves uncertainty over what is permitted. It doesn't solve the problem of SA, but possibly, to some people, that is not as important as meeting the other objective. So, going PD need not necessarily be seen as leveraging the opportunity of a licence change to change the licencing objective. It may be seen as the only "licence change" that will guarantee that OSM is a source of free geodata for new and innovative purposes, forever. Ian. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
