Frederik Ramm <frede...@...> writes: >Indeed, the >very first "official" statements from OSMF already contained what is >still the official chicken wording today: "[A PD license is] unlikely to >be adopted by all.", or "unlikely to be palatable to many OSM contributors".
>Which is strange, given that it is near certain that ODbL will "not be >adpoted by all" and "not be palatable to many OSM contributors" (simply >because there are so many to start with). With the ODbL this does not >seem too important - if push comes to shove we're willing to delete and >re-create data which is not re-licensed by the respective contributors; >but for the PD cause, the fact that there were hardliners unwilling to >agree was used as the reason for not pursuing this. Yes, there does seem to be a presumption in favour of relicensing, with the the decision (seen by some as a threat) to delete any data from those who don't comply; but there is not the same presumption in favour of changing to PD. I have heard it repeated a few times that share-alike is 'the settled consensus' among OSM contributors. But of course, those who favour PD will also be happy for their work to be distributed under share-alike terms, so a large contribution base under CC-BY-SA or indeed any licence does not mean that all of those people wouldn't have contributed anyway. I think it is equally arguable, based on the contributions to OSM so far, that Creative Commons is the 'settled consensus'. Without asking everyone, you can't tell whether they like share-alike in general, or particularly want to use CC-BY-SA for compatibility with the larger ecosystem of CC content. >We are now at a point where we have a clear alternative; go ODbL, or go >PD. (Or stay with CC-BY-SA but I really think that sticking to the >CC-BY-SA is more an expression of wishful thinking that anything else.) Noted. Remember, though, that there are huge transaction costs associated with any licence switch. Even if you agree that CC-BY-SA is less than ideal, it might be better than deleting big chunks out of the database and alienating parts of the contributor base. It might also undermine expectations of the project's stability. After all if we go through one big data deletion and relicensing, what's to stop it happening again later? >PD is easy to understand, provides maximum usefulness >of our data in all possible circumstances, and requires absolutely zero >man-hours of work tracking down "violators"; creates no community >friction because over-eager license vigilantes have to be reined in; >poses no risk of seducing OSMF to spend lots of money on lawyers; allows >us to concentrate on or core competencies. Agreed. There is certainly a risk of the project being captured by lawyers or, worse, overenthusiastic amateurs, and getting sidetracked into enforcing rights rather than forwarding its goal of free map data. That is one reason why I think a simpler, less armed-to-the-teeth licence may in the end be a good thing. -- Ed Avis <e...@waniasset.com> _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
