A poll could be something like: "Would you find a it acceptable if OSMF relicensed the whole dataset to ODBL without any data loss". If nothing else, that'd give an idea of how people feel about licensing vs data itself.
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> wrote: > Hi, > > > 80n wrote: > >> We have never said to any contributors that their data is protected. The >> only stipulation OSM ever made was that contributors had to agree to license >> their data in a certain way before they were allowed to upload it. >> > > If we have really never said nor implied that our contributors' data was > protected, then I'd say it is morally ok to simply relicense the whole thing > ODbL and be done with it. > > I do however believe that this would lead to an outcry because contributors > believed otherwise. Who, if not we, has created that belief? > > > But, it's an interesting point that maybe ODbL provides the protection >> that we all thought CC-BY-SA was giving. However it fails to do this. >> > > Depends on how you look at it, and this has been discussed endlessly. OSM > is a project about data, and ODbL seems very well suited to protect that > data(base), in an even stronger fashion than CC-BY-SA ever did (what with > having to release intermediate databases which could have been kept > proprietary under CC-BY-SA). At the same time it recognizes that trying to > extend protection to non-data(base) things just reduces OSM's usefulness, > and thus allows Produced Works to be published under any[*] license. > Remember that the stated goal of OSM is to create a free world map, not to > make sure some printed atlas or work of art somewhere is under a free > license. > > > It is clear that ODbL does a lot more than just fix CC-BY-SA so that it >> works for data. Why is that? >> > > ODbL is a new license, it is not a patch against CC-BY-SA. I see nothing > wrong with that; it is a product of a long and arduous community process in > which people with very different views about licensing and what's good and > what's bad for the project have agreed on a workable middle ground that > protects what is essential to the project and releases what is > non-essential. > > As you know, those who invented CC-BY-SA tried to somehow adapt it for use > with data, and came to the conclusion that they'd rather recommend all data > be CC0. Which I still think is a good idea but I accept that I can't always > have things my way if I want to be part of a community. > > Bye > Frederik > > [*] "any" has always been my reading, however there are others who claim > that ODbL does in fact not allow you to publish under any license, but it > must be some kind of attribution license. Here's Richard Fairhurst's take on > this: > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2010-June/006292.html > > > -- > Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
