On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 09:57:38AM +0000, Rob Myers wrote: > On 10/12/10 09:10, Simon Ward wrote: > > > >If the change is so different that it is not covered in an explicit list > >of licences *and* their upgrades that were agreed to by contributors, > >then actually, yes, I want to tie people’s hands from making such a > >change. It should be substantially harder, not necessarily impossible, > >and I think that means getting agreement from contributors again. > > If Creative Commons (to take the current licence) or ODC (to take > the next one) suddenly turn evil, are unable to react to changes in > the law, or produce a licence that you don't like, OSM(F) should be > able to react to that in more than a token way.
Fear, uncertainty, and doubt. > >I just said in another thread that I would be happier if the OKD was > >explicitly referenced. > > I don't think the future OSM community should be limited by another > party's definitions. They should be free to find their own. How do you find the OKD limiting? To me the OKD fits with the spirit of OSM. I don’t think it’s sufficient by itself, but I can’t win everything. I think it is something reasonable to refer to, and for those actually supporting open data is a very good definition. OSM doesn’t have t to stick to the OKD, but I think you are wrong in dismissing it entirely. I’d like a common standard for open data. If the OKD isn’t suitable, please feel free to explain why you think that. > >Well, I would be, but in light of what I have > >just written above, I’m still very much of the opinion that the > >future-licence-oh-no-we-don’t-want-to-go-through-this-again-paranoia > >bit isn’t necessary in the CTs. > > It's not "paranoia". It's a recognition that the task has been > necessary once, has been very difficult even after only a few years > of contributions, and may be necessary again after many more years. May be. Yes, back to the fear, I see. > The upgrade clause means that another arbitrary licence can be > substituted anyway. See what happened with the FDL and Wikipedia. I agree to the upgrade clause in the ODbL. I do not agree to the broad “free and open licence” of the CTs. > A good example of a very successful project that decided it was > cleverer than the future is the Linux kernel. It can only be > licenced under GPL 2.0. This means that software patents, DRM, > Tivoisation, SaaS, internet distribution and other challenges to the > freedom to use software that have emerged since GPL 2 was written > and are addressed in GPL 3 and AGPL 3 still affect the Linux kernel. I don’t see how that affects this. The kernel developers (rather Linus) chose to license under GPL v2 only for their own reasons. The above issues are completely irrelevant. I have never proposed that we go with ODbL 1.0 only, and have always accepted the upgrade clause as part and parcel of the licence. > Yes, an upgrade clause is (on balance) good, although some people > regard that loss of control as immoral in itself. Opening it even more in the CTs, by that token, is more immoral. I wouldn’t say it’s necessarily immoral, but I do think it is totally unnecessary. > But that already removes the control of individuals over the licencing > other individuals can use in the future. And OSM has already ended up > with the wrong licence once. Yay, more fear. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
