On 13/02/2012 12:53, Simon Poole wrote:
Am 13.02.2012 12:33, schrieb Frederik Ramm:
This can be read - as Simon seems to do it - to mean "the CTs
guarantee that required attribution will survive any future licence
changes", but I think he's on thin ice there; in my reading, the CTs
promise that OSMF will provide attribution, not that OSMF will only
ever release your data under licenses that guarantee attribution down
the line.
My statement should naturally be read in the context of the statement
below: if we distribute your data, the attribution via website (and
further schemes that are being developed) will remain intact.
But Simon is right when he says "data with such requirements would
have to be removed". This means that if we ever wanted to go PD, then
we'd have to find out which data has some kind of attribution
requirement attached, and remove that data before we go PD. Since we
don't require such data to be identified at the moment, that would be
one hell of a job.
In my eyes, this is a very sad development that undermines any future
license change, even one to a non-PD license. Earlier versions of the
CT basically required you to *only* contribute data of which you
could surely say that it could be relicensed freely under the
provisions of "free and open" and "2/3 of mappers agree". This as
been whittled down to "you can contribute anything that is compatible
with the current license and you don't even have to *tell* us what
further restrictions it is under". Any future license change has
therefore become very unlikely - except maybe a switch back to a CC
license -, and not much remains of the license change provision in
the CTs.
While I've expressed my displeasure with every revision of the CTs
after 1.0 for exactly your reasoning, I don't believe that the
situation is quite as bad as you paint it. Come April the 1st the only
extra "string attached" to data that is in the database should be
attribution via the Website. Which implies that further data removal
would only be necessary if we wanted to use a distribution license
that didn't require any attribution at all, which is extremely
unlikely (not the least because of the necessary data removal).
And not even that. Using a distribution license without any attribution
requirement and the OSMF obligation to provide first level attribution
is compatible and works together.
*If* non-share-alike licenses become the future norm for open sharing of
highly factual datasets, then I believe european licenses like the
generic UK Open Goverment License [1] will become the template. These
require first level attribution only ... which is the primary reason for
the CTs attribution clause. If anyone is interested on what I mean by
first level attribution, I have a draft paper here
http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_103fdxjk3qt
Mike
[1] http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk