Frederik Ramm <frede...@...> writes: >You seem to be saying: > >1. there is no proof that CC-BY-SA doesn't work; > >2. there is danger that anything based on contract law weakens the >protection we have for our data (because breach of contract doesn't give >us a strong handle) > >3. you accept that CC-BY-SA uncertainties may have turned off some >potential users > >4. you would happily go along with dual-licensing OSM under CC-BY-SA and > "some other, more permissive" license.
Yes that seems fair. >If so, then would not the "other, more permissive" license you are >willing to grant in 4 automatically lead to the weakened protection from 2? Yes. If the alternative licence were some kind of contract, then you can get people claiming that they didn't agree to the contract, or it's unenforceable, or that they did violate it but caused no monetary harm to the project so no damages are payable. However, if the current CC-BY-SA licence is putting off some people from using OSM data, this might be a worthwhile tradeoff to make. It might be worth weakening the legal protection somewhat in order to further the project's broader goals of making free map data available. In this particular case, although I'm not convinced that ODBL is more enforceable than CC-BY-SA, it is still enforceable enough to deter anybody who doesn't have a gift voucher for ten million dollars of legal services that they have to spend in the next two years. If we were having this discussion the other way round, to suggest dumping ODBL and moving to Creative Commons, I would probably still argue that the existing licence is strong enough and the theoretical legal scenarios aren't practical enough to cause concern. -- Ed Avis <e...@waniasset.com> _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
