2010/12/9 Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org>: > Peter, > > pec...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> 1) I'm not against ODbL. It is nice idea and I wholeheartedly support it; >> 2) I'm not against general idea of CT, I understand why it is needed; >> >> My confusion and problem lies within fact, that while I can accept CT >> if I add only my own data to OSM, I can't to do that due of >> third-party sources because some of them requires attribution and >> share alike. > > Do you have a concrete example of a third-party source that does not specify > a concrete license, but requests a general "attribution and share alike"? Or > is this only theoretical?
No, there are several real life cases for this. One case for attribution, another for both attribution and share alike. >> While ODbL is good enough for both of these things >> (theoretically), then CT blocks, because it says that nature of the >> license of imported data can change. As I'm not author of those data, >> I don't have permission to change nature of the license. > > In the original setup, data that is not compatible with the CT would not be > accepted, so if someone required attribution and share-alike, that data > would not be compatible. Don't want to argue but it is what confuses me - from one side, you accept that data is published under ODbL which is attribution/share alike, but you can't request to keep this clauses in the future. If that's a story, then it is not fully explained to community. Anyway, I understand your reasoning, i just want to find a solution to keep as much data as possible in this migration between license regime changes. > The current mood in LWG (as per the latest CT draft) seems to be to allow > such data in provisionally, i.e. you may contribute the data with some sort > of flag (no idea about technicalities) that says "if the license is ever > changed then this data must be removed" or so. That would be a very good starting point for compromise. In fact, I don't say that we couldn't get third-party data owners to relicense their stuff accordingly to PD or else (if license is changed), *problem* is that we don't have much change to do it in nearest future (1 - 2 years). But it is doable (although only working on political level). Anyway, please keep us informed about this. If such option will exist, that would be good solution. > Since your argument in this posting was not that you personally require > share-alike but you were concerned only about entering third-party data, I > would much rather have *less* third-party data and *more* liberty for the > project in the future, than *more data for the price of reduced liberty > later. This would be like taking out a mortgage on what OSM is in 10 years. > We would risk long-term problems for a short-term effect. Well, there is a problem - I create map for *today*. Now, we need a good, solid map. OSM is way to do it. Yes, there are sources which are PD and free and you can do whatever you want with it. But there are also very valuable sources which comes with restrictions. For time these restrictions matched our current license. Now we have to abandon and clean out these sources because license of OSM might change in the future. Now we want to make OSM ideal. Well, it is nice aim, but what worries is this - isn't that possible that these good intentions will just kill OSM? Reality is still there - there are lot of third-party sources which will be untouchable for us just because we have such ideal aim. That worries me. Anyway, thanks for great and detailed reply, I will wait for news about "temporary limit" flag for data, Cheers, Peter. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
