On 11/17/2010 09:46 AM, ke...@cordina.org.uk wrote:
My concern is still with the option to licence the data under any "free and open" licence. Since this has unspecified bounds, I don't see how any data with any restrictions whatsoever can be contributed as those restrictions could be broken in the future.
The only restriction currently allowed in the CTs is attribution. Since agreeing to attribution is a precondition for the use of that data, it would have to be removed if attribution was.
Looking at this the eyes or a data-holder, say the OS, who is considering allowing data to be used this would be a big concern as the term means they would lose control over how their data is licensed.
But looking OSM as a project in its own right rather than an aggregator of other project's data, restricting OSM's ability to do the right thing in the future based on restrictions imposed by other projects who can change their own licencing at will puts OSM at a disadvantage.
As I said in another thread, I think there is a big difference between "free and open" and "similar" as per ODbL. It would be hard to argue that a hypothetical licence that contradicted a term of ODbL was similar, but it could well still be free and open. Since ODbL is free and open any similar licence must arguably also be free and open, so I see the similar requirement as tighter.
If "any free and open" was replaced with "similar", the licence could still be changed to an evil one in a series of steps.
The control on all this is that any change must be voted for. - Rob. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
