On Monday 09 September 2019, Simon Poole wrote: > > Kathleen has already touched on this, but one more time. In general > the guidelines work as safe harbours, that is if somebody follows the > guidelines in good faith they can assume that they are doing > something we're reasonably happy with.
I am sorry but no, that is a complete distortion of the previous discussion. I have been the one who called for guidelines which err on the side of caution and make recommendations for how data users can be sure they safely meet the license requirements. Kathleen has rejected this approach by painting in dark colors various perceived disadvantages should the guidelines suggest anything that might not absolutely be necessary from the ODbL itself. Existing guidelines allow a lot of things that are clearly not allowed by the ODbL itself in terms of share-alike (like the regional cuts concept for example). They are clearly designed to err on the side of leniency for the data users. This has been largely accepted by the community because it waives rights the OSMF would have under the ODbL in cases where insisting on them would have relatively little benefit for the project itself (although you could of course still argue that there would be benefit for the open geodata community in general). But as a result today share-alike in the ODbL is essentially functionally dead. There are still cases where share-alike is clearly required but almost everyone routes around them. If you disagree please list cases where commercial OSM data users have published derivative databases. Commercial data users (and i am unfairly generalizing here of course) have been answering this extreme generosity in a "Gib jemandem den kleinen Finger und er nimmt die ganze Hand" kind of way when it comes to attribution in particular. That is to be expected from organizations whose main objective is to maximize short term profits at all costs. You can be certain that the same approach will be taken with an attribution guideline. Any loophole in the suggestions presented will be examined for the potential advantages it gives in the most excessive possible interpretation of the text. This is why i am strongly opposing the current draft because it pokes additional holes into the license while what it should do is putting a sign on aspects that might be perceived to be loopholes in the license itself with a clear message of: Here the safe terrain ends, we strongly suggest you don't go there if you don't want to get in legal trouble or potentially face the wrath of hundreds of thousands of OSM contributors and supporters. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
