Hi,
Mike Dupont wrote:
but seriously, the license team is not concerned about porting the
licenses to other jurisdictions, but once you have signed the new
contributor terms, they will not ever have to ask you again. This
process is about you giving up all your rights, not them doing
anything for it in return.
Well the "license team" does not *gain* anything from you signing the
contributor terms, so what should they do for you in return?
Additionally, "giving up all your rights" would probably mean something
like the switch to a Public Domain license. We are not doing that.
If you sign the Contributor Terms you allow OSMF to use your data in a
certain way which is described exactly in those terms, and which is
quite different from OSMF being able to do anything they want.
Actually it is nothing different that what "the osm fork team" seem to
want to do (CC-BY-SA, I believe): once you hand something out under
CC-BY-SA you allow people to use it without ever having to ask you
again. I challenge you to point out the fundamental difference.
The quality of the license is poor,
Independent lawyers have said it is the "best share-alike license for
databases available". Please point me to an ODbL evaluation, written by
a lawyer, that supports your claim.
the support in the open source
community is next to zero,
The support for your chosen license, CC-BY-SA I assume, was next to zero
when it was new, too.
the fragmented nature of the documents is
annoying,
Agreed.
there are many unanswered questions as well,
There are even more unanswered questions about your chosen license as
applied to geodate. (Do I have to list all names?)
the missing
compatibility with creative commons is a serious roadblock,
Someone who uses "creative commons" in a sentence like you just did
should be disqualified from discussing licensing, at all. Creative
Commons sponsors *several* licenses that are incompatible. No license on
earth can be compatible to CC-BY-SA and CC-BY-SA-NC at the same time.
From that it follows that every license on earth, including every
Creative Commons license, is incompatible to (some license sponsored by)
Creative Commons. "serious roadblock" indeed!
But once enough people have signed away their rights
That's an attempt at demagogy. You are not signing away your rights any
more with our Contributor Terms that you are, for example, with CC-BY-SA.
the license can
be changed at whim
The Contributor Terms require a 2/3 majority and a "free and open
license". If you truly believe that the word "at whim" is a correct
desription for that, consult a dictionary.
and adjusted so that it will mostly work, and if it
does not, tough luck.
As you probably know, most current Creative Commons licenses have an
automatic upgrade path that allows them to be "adjusted". I think this
is a good thing and I don't believe one should critisize the authors of
a license for allowing that.
We, the osm fork team are working on preserving your work and your
contributions under the existing license.
There is doubt whether the existing license is suitable to "preserve"
the work.
I personally wish that the
leaders of OSM were not so "us against them",
You mean "us against we, the osm fork team"?
Osm fork now has the resources to host the tiles
... thanks to the good people at archive.org, I believe. Why not say so,
there's no shame in that. Do archive.org know that they are hosting a
fork of OSM?
and also does not have the bandwidth problems that osm does.
We should be lucky that not everyone who sees a bandwidth problem starts
a fork, huh?
The only thing that is
missing is a good rendering solution for drawing updates, we are
working on new software to do a better tiles at home to render in a
distributed fashion.
That's interesting to hear.
When these things are in place your maps of
Thailand will not be lost, your data will be available and the tiles
will be usable also going into the future.
Of the 50 top contributors in Thailand, 39 have agreed to the
Contributor Terms and ODbL and 1 has said no; 10 are yet undecided. It
doesn't look as if there will be any map problems in Thailand.
I wish that OSM was not so monolithic, but there does not seem to be
any compassion or understanding for allowing multiple tiles, multiple
license or multiple layers in osm proper.
What's the difference between "multiple tiles" and "multiple layers"? We
do still have the Osmarender layer, and last thing I heard was Strategic
Working Group actively looking for new tile sources to be considered for
the main page.
Having said that, OSM is much more than www.openstreetmap.org.
With great sadness to I write these words
And also with great confusion, it seems, since at least half of it was
based on false assumptions.
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
