On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Chris Hunter <chunter...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Well, between the new links on the map and today's WIKI edit, it looks like > the Brits have decided to shove the ODbL down our throats after all. I have > major philosophical issues with the way the license change is being handled, > and feel that I can no longer participate in the OSM project.
Chris, While I'm sorry to see you leave, let me provide a different perspective on the issues which I hope will, if not change your mind, at least give you some food for thought. This change does nothing to the existing dataset or users, rather simply requires that going forward, contributors agree that their data is licensable under the ODbL. There are two aspects to this change. First is what effect it has on the project in the immediate term, and the second is the ODbL itself. There is no immediate effect that I can discern from this change. On other projects I've been involved in, a contributor may be expected to hand off copyright assignment to a central authority which is in charge of licensing. This isn't what's happening by this change. This is a gradual step towards potential ODbL adoption, an issue which has been voted on by the OSMF. The OSMF is a member organization and has members worldwide. I'm a member, and I'm not British. So then the matter for discussion is the ODbL itself. The ODbL is a complex license by FOSS standards. I have some concerns about the license myself, but ultimately we must look at the license intent. The current license for the OpenStreetMap database is Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike. In other words, if you want to use OSM data, you must attribute it to the project, and if you make a derivative work, you must share it under the same terms as you received it. The problem with CC in relation to OpenStreetMap, as has been discussed at length in other forums, is that it does not mesh well with the project. First, there is an open question on the applicability of which sets of laws the OSM data belongs to. In the US, for example, one might argue that none of OSM is copyrightable, and thus not subject the CC. If that were the case, then the license would be rendered meaningless, which would not be in our interest as a project. In Europe, the data is not under US-style copyright, but is is part of a database, and thus under specific database laws designed to handle collections of facts. Similar complexities exist all over the world, and the ODbL makes an attempt to unify these laws under a single license. That said, the terms of the ODbL are not substantively any different from the terms of CCBYSA- that is there are no added allowances or restrictions on use. These issues have been discussed and debated at length in the community and have been voted on. I hope this mail addresses your concerns. It's a bit difficult to know exactly what you object to, since your mail didn't have any specific concerns or actionable ways to address those concerns. If you want to talk about this with me, you know what to find me, and I hope you sleep on it and reconsider your decision. - Serge _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
