Hi,
Kai Krueger wrote:
However, it is also not possible to incorporate any datasources
such as e.g. OSM that are compatible with ODbL, as the CT prevent that as it
may move to PD.
I think we have already agreed on having to have exceptions for large
imports, i.e. there will be some data in OSM for which the CT are not
valid. This will be required whatever wording you choose for the license
upgrade path because some data donors do not want to sign up to the unknown.
So with respect to "concessions to the PD crowd", I think this is
unacceptable, as it destroys a large part of what OSM is today.
If at any time "a large part of what OSM is today" is imported data
please let me know as I'd like to quit then. OSM is about people and
community, not about megabytes!
Therefore I
would much rather see as a consession a strengthening of the first point,
i.e. the "I consider my data to PD" actually mean something and that one can
somehow extract "clean" PD data (however you end up technically and legally
defining clean) indeed as PD data.
That would be most welcome.
However, I am not sure that the term in the CT was originally meant as a way
to switch to PD or change the nature of the license in any other way.
I think it was meant to basically keep your options open should ODbL
turn out to be bad, or should the environment (or the project) change in
a way that ODbL was deemed no longer suitable. Any requirement we put in
the CT is very likely to stick with us forever so it case to be very
thoroughly evaluated. 10 years from now, OSM will still be bound by what
we put in there (if OSM still exists then).
That line of argument is imho very reasonable and one therefore well worth
having, but somehow we also need to find a way to make it more compatible
with more free and open licenses such as the rather liberally licensed
Ordanance Survey data, or the Australian CC-BY.
Would not trying to become compatible with a license that *we* think
doesn't work for OSM incur all sorts of trouble?
This brings us back to the
originally question of this topic. Will (or can) adding a "Attribution
Clause" in the CT make the construct of ODbL and CT compatible with more
free and open licenses such as CC-BY and thus allow us to retain more data?
The original question of this topic, as mentioned in the subject, was
not adding an attribution clause in the CT, but adding a share-alike
clause, which is a whole different ball game.
I am not sure a SA clause would help here, as moving to a different SA
license would still make it incompatible, so you would still not be able to
agree to the CT for a SA licensed source, but I would hope that situation
looks a little more promising for attribution only licenses.
I think adding something about attribution, if properly marketed towards
what you call "the PD crowd", could be acceptable.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
