Martin,
Is there a problem with the current license? Is it not clear from a legal point of view, how it should be interpreted? Correct--it's currently unclear how the license applies to many important use cases. Partly this is because it's untested: OSM is the only important user of ODbL (with allowances for some geo datasets that have been released under ODbL in the hopes of being imported). There is much more that could and should be done to clarify use and establish norms without revisions to the license. This proposal could be a useful step forward. A couple of us at Mapbox are taking a careful a look at the specifics, and plan to weigh in with more thoughts. I must admit I feel some reluctance towards the practise of introducing more and more examples and guidelines how to interpret the legal text, because every additional word is augmenting the risk of introducing loopholes and weakening our position in a potential prosecution of infringers. As you note, infringements have never been prosecuted. But right now, every day, data is being collected in places other than OSM because of uncertainty regarding the license (cf OpenAddresses, OpenTraffic). I came to Mapbox to work on open data, having spent six years advocating for it at a nonprofit called the Sunlight Foundation. It's dismaying to see the landscape fractured. I would like OSM to become a better legal home (or at least partner) for all geodata, including new datasets like LIDAR, traffic and street-level imagery. Those projects are going elsewhere right now. I understand your desire to preserve a strong position for hypothetical future infringement claims. But this goal clearly only makes sense insofar as it serves the larger goal of creating a useful project. The point of OpenStreetMap is not to win lawsuits, after all. Tom
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
