On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 09:49:56PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: > ODbL in itself has an upgrade clause, too; it allows derived databases > (including of course a complete copy) to be licensed under (section > 4.4)
I think the upgrade clause in ODbL is sufficiently flexible for possible licence improvements without overstepping the mark. I can agree to something that is essentially an incremental upgrade, but not for an arbitrary licence switch. I have some trust (possibly baseless) that OKFN would incrementally improve the ODbL (even better if they formally state that they would only ever incrementally update the licence). However, the CTs “explicitly” give the option of a switch to an arbitrary free and open licence, which still gives the option of a licence that is fundamentally different. “Free and open”, as well as being a vague term that I doubt has any formal legal definition (please correct me if I’m wrong), does not magically make all such licences the same, as shown by the various incompatibilities between so‐called “free” or “open source” software licences. > Now who exactly decides when to issue a "later version of ODbL" or > what makes a license "compatible" isn't made explicit, but I think > it is safe to say that an upgrade along that path would be possible > with a lot less eyes watching than an upgrade under the upgrade per > clause 3 of the CT! So, you advocate having two upgrade paths, including what you consider a more stealthy upgrade path, rather than just the one? I don’t see how that’s any better. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
