Matt Amos <zerebub...@...> writes: >there has been some FUD about these "deletions" of data. let me say it >here: no data will be deleted. if the re-licensing goes ahead then all >of the data that everyone has contributed would be made available >through dumps.
Right. I think everyone understands that, but for an OSM contributor the choice is still either agree, or see your edits disappear from the map and from the database. Of course it has to be that way. I have noticed that some people see it (whether intended or not) as a kind of threat: sign up or say goodbye to your edits. This would be a disadvantage of any licence change, to ODBL or anything else. >we at the LWG have been working very hard to produce the >license that we think the majority of OSM contributors want. a large >amount of previous discussion on this and the talk MLs has suggested >that share-alike is a much-requested feature*, so we've been working >to that goal as best we can. your suggestion that we're >overenthusiastic amateurs, sidetracking the project is deeply >insulting. Sorry. I would like to withdraw that remark. It is clear that everyone working on licence issues has the best interests of the project at heart. >let's say, for a moment, that CC BY-SA definitely doesn't work and >isn't an option. what would you do? if you'd move to a new license, >which license? Assuming, then, that a licence change is required (along with 'deleting' data from people who don't agree, etc). I would prefer one which is CC-compatible, so public domain would work, or some permissive licence such as CC0. However, if it is not possible to have both CC-compatible and share-alike properties at the same time, which is what you are suggesting, and if share-alike is considered the more important of the two, then I would choose a licence which tries to enforce share-alike through copyright and database right. In a country where neither copyright nor database right exists for map data, good luck to them - obviously they've realized the value of free map data, which is what OSM has been promoting all along. I would not choose a licence which purports to make a contract, or which would require click-through agreement before downloading planet files. In general, the ideal licence would not need to be fully watertight in all jurisdictions, but only strong enough to provide a good deterrent in practice for most individuals and companies. -- Ed Avis <e...@waniasset.com> _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
