At 08:28 PM 6/01/2011, John Smith wrote: >On 7 January 2011 05:14, Mike Collinson <m...@ayeltd.biz> wrote: >> I almost wish that Tobias Knerr's words earlier in this thread were my own: >> >> "The Contributor Terms are clearly based on the idea that we are building >> a database together. It's not just several people's maps sitting next to >> each other, it's a collective effort, with no clear separation between >> "my data", "your data" and "their data". >> As a consequence, aspects such as the license are subject to collective, >> not individual, decisions." > >And I wish the indecisiveness built into the CTs didn't exist and the >project had a clear outlook on where it was going, because at present >even if the CT/ODBL is accepted it looks like some will push for >further license changes to PD. > >If OSM is going to PD, fine, but please make this decision clear and >communicate it well, if it's going to stay share a like, fine, but at >present it's neither and this will continue to be a thorn.
I naturally would prefer the term "flexibility" rather than "indecisiveness" :-) and that it is a highly strategic feature not a bug. I hope you will stay contributing and be a party to future collective decisions whether or not we personally agree. OSM is a very, very long life project about free and open geodata. Share-alike and PD are tools just as Ruby-on-Rails is. Flexibility on those tools is important for three reasons. - The first is short-term, internal to OSM and political. There are broadly two main groups of contributors, share-alike and PD proponents. Each side claims to be in the majority so the reality is that both sides are roughly even and neither can claim moral ascendency. My goal is consensus between those two groups: we stay share-alike, we pioneer a coherent share-alike license for highly factual data and we explore how it can work in the real world. If it works well, the 2/3 majority required to make a change effectively locks in share-alike. Otherwise, the PD proponents who reluctantly go along can try and persuade us why a PD-like license can best serve the open data movement, and they have a rational, democratic mechanism to do so. If enthusiastic supporters of either side are unhappy, then I have done my job well :-) - OpenStreetMap is THE pioneer in creating and licensing open highly granular, high factual data. It took over 10 years for the choices for licensing open software to become obvious and reasonably mature. We are only 6 years in and still discussing our opening move. -The flexibility is ultimately for the long, long term. A very large percentage of what we map now will still be valid in 120 years time, just as I can still navigate using a local 1891 OS map. We are on the extreme end as to the potential life of our project. Software, even operating systems, come and go and get re-written with fresh perspectives. If, as happens, they die because the licensing regimen did not anticipate the future, it is not such a big deal. For us, it is. Share-alike is a tool to progressing the goal of Open IP, not an end in itself. May be it will have outlived its utility in 10, 50 or 100 years, may be it won't. Mike _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
