Hi, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
That's why I think the issue of whether we really want the ability for the license to be changed completely should be discussed first. Obviously those who created the current version of CT think that it is a good idea, and Frederik thinks so too and is very vocal about it.
Being able to relicense is certainly good. And if that means less imports that's even better ;)
Honestly, and maybe that debate should have been had in more detail long ago, I think that imports are generally bad with only a few limited exceptions, and my vision for the future OSM is not that we are some kind of collection point for other peoples' datasets. The past has shown that imports have a short-term wow effect and very little else to offer.
Despite that it does not seem the majority thinks so, please see http://doodle.com/5ey98xzwcz69ytq7
If we have the CT as they currently stand, we can *still* import datasets by granting an exception (i.e. import a dataset for ODbL distribution only with no license upgrade clause for that dataset). Should we ever change the license in the future, that data will be lost, but we *can* make such exceptions on a case-by-case basis.
However, if we decide against the relicensing clause in the CT then we don't have the same option ("ok let's relicense at the cost of losing that imported data").
Imports are overrated and should be strictly limited (and controlled more than they are today). But imports under ODbL do not become *impossible* with the CTs as they are suggested - they just require OSMF approval. So the question is not put very well.
Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
