On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 02:04:21PM +0000, Rob Myers wrote: > Relicencing is, I agree, a drastic move. But we are talking about > making it possible or not here. And it is something that requires a > convincing vote to achieve under the CTs.
I do not believe relicensing is impossible without it being included in the CTs. I also believe that the upgrade clauses in the licences give enough flexibility. However, my current position has falled back to “have your stupid relicensing clauses, just make them clear, well‐defined and unambigous”. > >space at the time). We got new licences to choose from that countered > >“Tivoisation” and software as a service issues. Let’s not also forget > > We did. Which is precisely my point. The Linux kernel cannot move to them. Most (I’m guessing) free software projects just use the FSF’s copyright statement which includes the “version X or any later version” upgrade clause. The Linux kernel (or parts of it) is licensed only under version 2 of the GPL, no upgrade clause. That is by choice of some kernel developers, some do not like GPL v3 or other licences and do not want the kernel to move to them. With CC by-sa and the ODbL, upgrade clauses exist in the licences themselves. There is already a route to upgrade. I do not think the Linux kernel licence situation is comparable to one where most of the community wishes to switch to another licence and where there are upgrade clauses that can be used. > >I do not think arguing by counter example is sufficient proof here. > >Those historical examples were special cases in their own rights, and a > > They are examples of large projects. That they had their own > specific reasons for relicencing underlines the fact that > relicencing is a general problem rather than one that only problem > or opportunity X can lead to. > > >large number of projects have also survived without the need to ever > >relicense. > > Smaller projects, yes. A general problem does not require an over‐generalised solution. Not every large project has wanted or needed to relicense. This line of conversation appears not to be getting very far… > >I didn’t say it what you wrote was incorrect. I implied that you were > >using the current “wrong” licence choice as a reason for leaving it wide > >open because of the fear that it will happen again. > > And I implied that calling an argument that presents its case based > on evidence and argument "fear" was a rhetorical move rather than > any kind of refutation of the argument. Then I don’t know how to argue against fear (or rationale based on fear). Do you have any pointers? :) > >I’m not after the freedom to relicense here, I’m after the freedom for > >the data to be useful. I don’t believe the freedom to relicense plays a > >large part in the continued usefulness of the data, the licence itself > >helps more with that, and if it doesn’t, why are we moving to it again? > > And why didn't OSM just use it to start with? Because ODbL didn’t exist. That doesn’t really challenge my belief that the freedom to relicence is only a small part in the continued usefulness of the data. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
