Knowing it does not really start the discussion: I totally agree. Lukas (LM_1)
2012/1/18 ant <antof...@gmail.com>: > First of all I must say that I highly respect the work of everyone who has > been actively involved in the licence change, including the LWG members, the > writers of licence change inspection programs and everyone involved in > discussions. > > I have been watching the process for more than two years and have ever since > been a supporter of the change. > > However, especially since the switchover date has been announced and the > phase of remapping has started, I have become more and more skeptical about > the way things are going on. I want to discuss a couple of concerns I have. > > 1. The black box > > As far as I can see the details of the implementation of the licence change, > i.e. of what is actually going to happen on April 1st, are not known - or at > least not revealed. Correct me if I am wrong. > > Particularly, the wiki page „What is clean?“[1], which has been said to be > the binding document, is in its current state not sufficient to serve as a > reference for any measures regarding the cleaning of data: > * The considerations in the section „Edge cases“ are only a random selection > of cases that have been discussed. Neither conditional stetements like „if > it can be seen not to influence the current version“ nor questions like „Can > you copyright the state of something not being there?“ (rhetorical?) are > helpful. The list somewhat lacks a systematic approach. > * The „deletion paradox“ is, as it has been pointed out on the discussion > page, no paradox at all (rather it depends on the strategy of cleaning). > * The section „What taints data?“ repeats the above-mentioned list, but is > differently (better) structured and different in content. Statements in this > list, however, contradict, or supersede, previous statements („A tag > modified by a non-agreeing mapper is tainted“, whereas: correcting a tagging > typo is not tainted). Furthermore the list contains instructions, which > should not be the case in a mere specification of what is clean. The clause > saying that intermediate versions should be created during remapping (a) > does not belong here and (b) is questionable, as it is based on assumptions > regarding the implementation of switchover, which has not yet been decided > upon. > * There should be rationales explaining for each statement why it is so and > not different. > > Basically I think that this document needs a rewrite that shall contain > unambiguous statements preceded by precise definitions. In order to get > there, however, we must of course have a discussion. > > 2. Getting clear about taintedness > > IANAL. But I like to approach problems in a systematical manner. For > example, I recently asked myself the question, „What is a copyrightable > object in OSM?“. I think this is a fundamental question to answer if you > discuss licence topics. > Is a node copyrightable? > If yes, what's copyrightable about it? > What's copyrightable about a way? > Is the list of references to nodes copyrightable separately from the way's > tags? > Are references to nodes atomic? (I.e. Is a single reference copyrightable? > Or is only the list as a whole?) > Sorry for the rhetoric, but these questions do bother me. I believe they > have to be answered prior to discussing which kinds of modifications to what > object have what effect (-> taintedness). And when that has been settled, we > can talk about measures. > > All in all I think that the approach to the whole thing so far has been too > pragmatic, just like identifying edge cases and modeling something around > it. Of course, this might somehow work and the result might even be > satisfying, but to me it doesn't seem appropriate in a legally significant > matter like this. > > 3. Remapping > > Considering that neither the definitions of what is clean and what is > tainted nor the technical details of the implementation have yet been > finalized, it seems unreasonable for me to remap. I don't want to discover > later that I have done unnecessary work. Besides, current remapping practice > is completely based on the available inspection tools that implement - more > or less precisely - a taintedness policy that is still in draft status. For > this reason I also refuse to use the odbl=clean tag. > > > Now I could elaborate a lot more. But the purpose of my post actually is to > start a discussion, and I am asking you. Me too wants the licence change to > be a success. So let's go. > > Cheers > ant > > [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/What_is_clean%3F > > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
