Tobias,
thank you for writing this. It seems you are speaking from the hearts of
many people.
thanks,
mike
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Tobias Knerr <o...@tobias-knerr.de> wrote:
> I apologize in advance for distracting everyone's attention from mapping
> and other pleasures with a long mail about licenses. However, I have
> begun to seriously doubt the decision to choose ODbL as the one future
> OSM license, and believe we should have another look at the license that
> will ultimately be used for the database published by OSMF.
>
> In a nutshell:
> The Contributor Terms give the OSMF the right to publish OSM data under
> the terms of the CC-BY-SA. I suggest that the OSMF should use that
> right, and *continue to publish the OSM database under CC-BY-SA* after
> the end of the license change process.
>
> So do I suggest to stop the license change process? No, I don't. The
> Contributor Terms will solve many problems on their own, so my
> suggestion is what could be labelled "CT + CC-BY-SA".
>
> Do I suggest to abandon ODbL? No. Though I do not like ODbL very much, I
> do not oppose making the OSM database available under that license. If
> there are people who want to use OSM under ODbL terms - and I expect
> there will be some - we can allow them to do so by dual licensing our
> database.
>
> But what I'm asking for is that we continue to offer fresh OSM data
> under the most attractive license for many honest and productive users
> of our data: CC-BY-SA.
>
>
> Now for the details. In my opinion, CC-BY-SA has very desirable features:
>
> * It is easy to comply with.
> * It is popular and trusted.
>
> Below, I will explain why - so if something doesn't seem instantly
> obvious to you, read on. In addition, I will address the following
> topics commonly discussed in the context of our license change:
>
> * Collective attribution
> * Compatibility with other licenses
> * Future-Proofness
> * Uncertainty and doubt
> * Inadequate protection
>
>
> * CC-BY-SA is easy to comply with. *
>
> This is what I consider the most compelling benefit. After all, if it's
> easy to work with OSM, then people will create cool stuff ("products",
> "produced works").
>
> With CC-BY-SA, you add a license note and attribution to your product
> and you are done. All other effects are purely legal (letting people
> copy and modify your work), and do not require any effort on your part.
>
> ODbL expects you to do the same, but adds another, far more onerous
> requirement: publishing derivative databases used in the creation of
> your products. It is hard to understand what these are, and it is often
> a challenge to distinguish them from produced works. Publishing the
> derivative databases can be a significant burden when compared with
> creation and distribution of the product itself. That's not a new
> discovery, by the way, and that's why the license attempts to solve the
> issue by letting you instead describe the process of reproducing the
> derivative database. Unfortunately, that option is not clearly defined,
> might not be possible with proprietary software, and can again be a
> significant burden for any producer using OSM data.
>
> * CC-BY-SA is popular and trusted. *
>
> The Creative Commons brand is well-known. ODbL and OKF are not. CC's
> popularity is for a large part due to its presence in art and popular
> culture, which is something that a pure database license will never
> fully achieve. The openness instantly associated with the CC licenses by
> many is an important differentiator for OSM when it is compared with
> closed competitors like Google Map Maker. People won't compare two walls
> of legal text. But if they learn that OSM uses CC, they know we're the
> good guys.
>
> * Collective attribution *
>
> We want to make sure that users of the data do not need to list all
> individual contributors. Luckily, contributors now make data available
> to the OSMF under terms that don't usually require attribution, and the
> OSMF re-publishes it under an license requiring attribution. Therefore,
> collective attribution should be safe with a CT + CC-BY-SA solution.
>
> * Future-Proofness *
>
> We want to be able to change the license in the future if the geodata
> environment changes drastically. This is not related to ODbL, but a
> feature of the CT.
>
> * Uncertainty and Doubt *
>
> Another reason frequently suggested for the switch to CT + ODbL is
> making it easier for users of the data to know what they need to do in
> order to conform to the license requirements. The first aspect is "who
> do you ask if you aren't sure?" It has been suggested that introducing
> the Contributor Terms makes it easier to get a useful response because
> you no longer need to ask thousands of individuals for their
> interpretations of the license, but this seems to be a property of the
> CT, not of the ODbL.
>
> As far as the licenses themselves are concerned, I observe that CC-BY-SA
> seems to be /easier/ for people to interpret. Among the reasons for this
> might again be the popularity of the licenses: CC-BY-SA images are used
> by thousands of newspapers and websites, so I can just follow their
> example when using OSM maps in a similar manner and will likely not get
> it completely wrong. But it goes beyond that. The complexity of the ODbL
> itself makes it hard to define what you need to do to comply, and we
> have alreadly seen some indication of this when people asked what the
> ODbL means in detail.
>
> And, of course, choosing a dual licensing approach would let people pick
> the license they are more comfortable with.
>
> * Inadequate protection *
>
> CC-BY-SA might not "work" for data. OSM data is not currently abused in
> a manner that threatens the project, and that might never even happen.
> Nevertheless, it seems wise to make sure that we can either prevent this
> or at least react when it happens.
>
> It is true that, by continuing to offer the database under CC-BY-SA, we
> would no longer /preemptively/ address this potential issue. Making
> contributors agree to the CT gives us the ability to react *if* legal
> weaknesses of the CC-BY-SA are actually abused at some future point,
> though, and I believe that this is sufficient.
>
> * Conclusion *
>
> The CC-BY-SA is popular, understandable and easy to implement for users
> of our data. It does not build legal barriers that make using OSM much
> harder than it strictly needs to be, which encourages people to use OSM
> in creative, productive and unexpected ways. Continued publication of
> the OSM database under CC-BY-SA will therefore help us fulfil our
> project's mission, and can be implemented without disruption of the
> ongoing licensing process.
>
> -- Tobias Knerr
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
--
James Michael DuPont
Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
