Joseph wrote: "If we go with your proposal, the OSM foundation could authorise future license changes if we find more problems with our new license. I like that idea. Unfortunately, it gives the foundation a lot more work to do."
I assure everyone the license will need to be changed again at some point in the future. The legal system is in a constant state of evolution and you never know how new technology will change the game. I think it would be a great idea to contributors assign OSM the ability to relicense OSM data as long as that decision follows a basic set of principles. The Sunburned Surveyor On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 5:35 PM, Joseph Gentle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Its a compromise; a compromise which I think the purists on this list (most > of us) will disagree with. > > It does seem like a good way for the share-alike supporters to champion free > software while at the same time making sure their 'free' contributions never > end up in the hands of those evil big business. It solves my problem (2) > from my earlier email; that there are legitimate uses for the data which our > current license blocks due to litigation. The situation at the moment is > that your freedoms regarding the maps are more controlled by how afraid you > are of litigation than by what you want to do with the maps. > > No matter how we change the licensing situation, it will require a mail out > to all members. Some contributors will have changed their email addresses. > Some contributors won't read the email, and some contributors won't agree > with the changes. We'll lose data. When that happens, there'll be mirrors of > the old data before the change (for users of our maps, the fine points of > the license don't matter as much as map data quality). Its all ugly; and we > want to only do it once. > > I guess we should optimise for: > a) Never having to lose data like that again > b) Making a proposal that as many members as possible will agree with > > If we go with your proposal, the OSM foundation could authorise future > license changes if we find more problems with our new license. I like that > idea. Unfortunately, it gives the foundation a lot more work to do. > > -J > > > On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 9:44 AM, Brian Quinion > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> OK, so either not OSMF (but a group setup for the purpose) or OSMF >> >> with better protections for who can be a board member. How about a >> >> group made up of interested parties with a minimum amount of data >> >> submitted to OSM... :-) >> >> > See, you're starting to walk the path towards non-freedom already. >> > You're starting to talk of criteria, of restrictions, of authority. >> >> Ah, but since I'm only suggesting adding to CC-by-SA not replacing it >> it can't make the freedom situation any worse :-) >> >> > BUT to get the more paranoid people among us to accept such a body with >> > these rights, you will have to set up a huge and complicated process >> > with checks and balances and positions of power and well-defined >> > decision making processes and all - a real ugly beast if you ask me. >> >> Yes, from the responses so far I guess that is exactly what would >> happen. But on the other hand that is exactly what we seem to have at >> the moment - a bureaucratic mess. >> >> I suppose my feeling is that a group with the ability to grant waivers >> makes the project 'fail safe' since the worst that happens is that the >> data gets given away. With the current situation we could end up in a >> situation where people couldn't use it at all. Indeed I think we have >> already reached that point - just look at all the discussion about how >> we go about changing the license at all, we are tying ourselves in >> legal knots. >> >> Yes, someone could come in and find a loop hole, but it would be >> public, it would be messy and it would be bad publicity for whoever >> did it and I'd say the benefits outweigh the risks. >> >> > "Unhappy with something? Just submit it, in written form, with three >> > copies, to our under-secretary for member queries, and it might just get >> > on the agenda for next year's AGM..." >> > I am not a control freak. I think formal decisions, votes, authority and >> > all that should be avoided wherever possible. As long as we can manage >> > with our "do-ocracy", let us do that. >> >> But there is always CC-By-SA so nothing is lost... unless you think it >> is possible to get everyone to move over to PD? otherwise I think we >> need a middle route because there will always be special cases and the >> project as a whole needs a way to deal with them because at the moment >> it clearly does not. A new license (however carefully written) is >> unlikely to solve that! >> >> -- >> Brian >> >> _______________________________________________ >> legal-talk mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > > > > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > > _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
