On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 12:13:26AM -0400, Richard Weait wrote: > We can do the license change now because it is the right thing to do, > or we can do the license change now and make future license changes > simpler for future OpenSteetMap communities.
OSMF have chosen DbCL for individual database contents. That leaves
quite some flexibility in how individual contents may be used and
distributed without taking into account the extraction from the database
that is covered by the ODbL.
There is already the ability to change the licence without the CTs:
There is an upgrade clause in the ODbL itself.
With the CTs, explicit distribution under the terms of CC by-sa 2.0 is
given (for compatibility). This licence also includes a form of
upgradability.
I think the above upgradability makes the clause in the CTs unnecessary,
but I am willing to compromise:
I suggest at least some minimum attribution and share alike provisions
(although I personally care less about attribution), mirroring those
provided by the ODbL:
* Attribution of the direct source of the data set. That is, no
requirement for attribution chaining, no requirement for attributing
every single content contribution.
* Share alike on datasets. I agree that extending share alike to
things like rendered maps, routes from route planners, etc (produced
works in ODbL terminology) are outside the scope for share alike.
(Well, I agree with the ODbL, just not the CTs.)
Remember that “share alike” generally only means the reciprocality
applies when the work is distributed to another entity but you may want
to explicitly state this too.
> If we leave out a relicensing provision entirely, the future OSM
> community will have to do this all over again.
See above, the licences have upgradability.
> All of it. Not just casting about for the new license and convincing
> the majority of the community that the new license is right, but also
> the figuring out what to do about the data touched by those who
> disagree. Eliminating that last point seems like a worthy improvement
> to make to the process.
I think it is unnecessary to completely eliminate it.
> Future license changes will still be hard.
Flexibility vs clear licence guarantee. I think there should be some
compromise at some point, a minimum level to be set that says “beyond
this point we will either have to fork¹, or gain more complete
cooperation of the community, not just 2/3rds of it.
Before you repeat statements about the policies of the GNU project and
the Apache Software Foundation, I can’t say I completely agree with
their methods either, and thus have not contributed anything more than
small patches to them (although I do support the stated aims of the
FSF).
¹So if OSMF desperately wanted to remove minimum attribution and share
alike without complete cooperation, they might be expected to continue
supporting the existing project.
> We choose LGPL for one project and AfferoGPL for another.
Use of the LGPL is discouraged by the FSF[1].
[1]: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html
> But we don't choose the license before we know the context.
If we don’t know the context now, why are we changing the licence?
It sounds to me like OSMF and LWG are scared that they haven’t made the
right decision. This doesn’t instill a lot of confidence in them. I
would like to see some certainty from them.
> I'm surprised that some in the community believe that they know the
> context facing the future community better than the future community
> will know it when they see it.
Above, I allow for changing the licence, but ensuring some minimum
requirements are met. This is a safety net, not a push back.
> I'm disappointed that some fingers are pointed at "OSMF" and "LWG" as
> not worthy of trusting with a future license change.
See above: I’m not filled with confidence about their decisions.
> Partly that is disappointing because "OSMF" and "LWG" could be any one of you.
I’m a member of OSMF, and I have been voicing my opinions, and
supporting those of others.
[More trust blather]
OSMF doesn’t trust the contributors (some rightly so). It goes both
ways.
> But there will be future license changes. Even if they are minor
> version changes to ODbL v1.1 there will be changes.
Upgrade clause is in ODbL 1.0, see above.
> GPL is on version 3[2].
Licence does not include upgrade clause, but the recommended “copyright
statement” suggests including one. People can choose not to. (My
standard blurb was version 2 only until I had chance to review the final
v3 licence and be happy with it. Now my blurb covers v2 or v3 without
any “or later”.)
The FSF also gives promises about the terms in future versions of the
GPL (although even from v2 to v3 people disputed that the FSF went by
their own promises).
> CC-By is on version 3[3].
CC-By and family include upgradability in the terms.
> We know that future licenses will change because the world is
> changing.
That is why it is important to allow some flexibility, but it doesn’t
mean the options should be left wide open.
Simon
--
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
