On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 6:11 PM, David Murn <da...@incanberra.com.au> wrote: > Thats fine for data that is sourced from NearMap. What about other data > sources, such as imports and the like? Having said that, if the CTs are > accepted by one group, Im sure theyll be accepted by most, as it seems > that everyone has the same problems with it.
I'm using "Nearmap" as a surrogate for a class of sources of data that is open-source but not owned by those who would be uploading it. We're lucky that NearMap articulated the problem early enough to do something about it. I'm assuming the LWG haven't even thought about a specific Nearmap exemption. > This is fine for your own individual GPS traces and your own work, but > what about derived work? Should everyone elses data be relicenced to > ODbL? What about if another project decided to use work youd done, and > then relicenced it under their own licence? Should they have no > sympathy for the work you did and respect your rights? Why are data > sources not entitled to be treated the way youd like yours to be > treated? Why should someone spend resources to collect data, then > release it freely, only to have it relicenced under terms they may not > even know about, letalone agree with? Your five consecutive questions here all seem predicated on there being no distinction between an active current contributor who is in a position to assess the licence change and agree to it, and some former contributor or third party data source. No, you can't re-license someone's data without their permission, that's clear. But I also haven't yet seen any reasons, other than sheer bloody mindedness, why a person who was happy to contribute under a CC-BY-SA licence would be unhappy to do so under ODbL, assuming they were able to do so. > Would you write OSM a contract, have it signed and witnessed, but > leaving a big blank spot for OSM to fill in with whatever they may see > fit to put there in the future (but dont worry, they wont change the > contract to their favour against yours, because theyre an 'open' group.. > now part owned by a private business).. THAT is the 'philosophical > problem' I think Liz and a lot of us others have with the current > proposal. Although Im happy to be corrected by Liz if this isnt the > case. You know, we can do this without the inflammatory language. So you're happy with ODbL, but not happy with the "some future free licence voted on by our members" clause? Agreed - it's problematic. I get the impression some people are unhappy with the change to ODbL *per se* though. If not, I've just misunderstood again. So, I guess that leaves a number of positions people can take: 1) Happy with ODbL, happy with future licence change clause, unencumbered by other licences (eg Nearmap), happy to sign up. 2) Happy with ODbL, happy with future licence change clause, but can't sign up due to other licences in effect 3) Happy with ODbL, unhappy with future licence change clause, (and could either be encumbered or unencumbered), so won't sign up 4) Unhappy with ODbL. So I guess I'm 2, you're 3, and I thought anyone who was talking about an "OSM CC-BY-SA" fork was 4. Steve Steve _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
