On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Ed Avis <e...@waniasset.com> wrote: > Grant Slater <openstreetmap@...> writes: > >>>- block anyone who says no from contributing >>>and presto! you have your 2/3 majority of active contributors. > >>Reality check... So to "steal" all our precious data and kick the >>majority of the contributors the "stupid evil OSMF" you propose would >>have to shut down people contributing and joining OSM for 9 MONTHS >>before they could run such a rigged system. > > You're right, it is a fanciful and unrealistic example, at least from the > point > of view of keeping a running OSM project with contributors. It would be a way > to get a static copy of the map under any terms wanted. > > However, what I hope people realize is that these 'evil conspiracy theory' > arguments are the same ones used to assert that CC-BY-SA doesn't protect the > data, any company could just copy it, and so on, despite not a shred of > evidence > that this has happened.
funny thing is, i don't see these 'evil conspiracy theory' arguments coming from lawyers, whereas i've heard the 'CC-BY-SA doesn't protect the data' argument coming not only from lawyers, but also from Creative Commons itself! > I wish people would apply a more realistic perspective > and 'assume good faith' a little bit more in these matters too. as do i. everyone serving on OSMF working groups, including LWG, cares deeply about the state and future of OSM, and they spend a great deal of their time trying to ensure that future. (small plug for the OSMF workshop, Sunday 12th - come along and chat with the board members and other interested OSMF members [1]) > All I intended > to demonstrate is that no amount of legalese and boilerplate in the licence or > contributor terms will block out all possible abuses, so we should lighten up > a bit. you're absolutely right. no matter what the license we have, or the terms that are offered to contributors, there will always be people and companies using the data without complying with the license, or contributors (possibly companies) uploading data which can't be safely used as part of OSM. i do believe that the new license and contributor terms better define what is acceptable, and that if/when it becomes necessary to take action in the future, we'll be in a better place. cheers, matt [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Board_Meeting_June_2011 _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk