On 25/08/2010, at 5:41 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > There is also a very practical reason against fixing anything, and > *specifically* a share-alike requirement, in the CT, and that is that in > order to make *clear* what you want you will have to write half a license > into the CT.
I completely agree - if you want to add a clause requiring that future licenses be "share alike" you'll need to come up with a good definition of what that means, and once you do you're probably made it impossible to relicense. The whole point of the relicensing clause is that we don't know what we'll need in the future. Consider for example if OSM had originally had the CTs along with the CC-BY-SA license. I would argue strongly that we couldn't then re-license to ODbL under the CTs because ODbL's version of share-alike isn't what people would have assumed it meant when they signed up. If I agreed to the CTs along with CC-BY-SA, I would expect that "share alike" meant rendered images would have to be under the same license, but ODbL doesn't require that. For the people who want a share-alike requirement in the CTs, how do you want it defined? If we want to require Derived Databases to be under the same license, but not Produced Works or Insubstantial Extractions, you'll have to define those terms. In addition, you'll probably need to define Publicly Use and many of the rest too. Once you've defined all of those in the CTs, then realise that it means we probably can never use the CTs to relicense because the target licence has slightly different definitions of those terms or doesn't have the exact same requirements. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
