On 11/12/10 03:26, Simon Ward wrote:
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 09:57:38AM +0000, Rob Myers wrote:
On 10/12/10 09:10, Simon Ward wrote:
Fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
Meme.
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?
I don't.
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.
You ask me how I find it limiting, then you say you'd rather not be
limited by it?
I think it is something reasonable to refer to, and for
those actually supporting open data is a very good definition. OSM
I agree.
doesn’t have t to stick to the OKD, but I think you are wrong in
dismissing it entirely.
You are wrong in thinking that I am "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.
If it was a good idea for OSM(F) to use an external definition, choosing
the OKD would be a no-brainer.
To spell it out: I am a strong supporter of the OKF and I think the OKD
is excellent. This is an independent issue from whether I think the
OSM(F) should adopt any external definition of free or open data.
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.
And OSM isn't the only major free/open project that has had to be
relicenced.
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.
The reason I mention Wikipedia is that it shows that is not sufficient
to prevent relicencing.
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.
You don't see how an actual example of licence lock-in having
detrimental effects on a project's users is relevant to a discussion of
licence lock-in?
The kernel developers (rather
Linus) chose to license under GPL v2 only for their own reasons. The
above issues are completely irrelevant.
Their reasons, whatever they were, have had detrimental consequences for
future users. The *fact* that this has caused issues is entirely relevant.
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.
That's probably because it is.
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.
I have provided historical examples of project licencing and relicencing
and I have argued that they show this not to be the case.
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.
Which part of what I wrote there is factually or logically incorrect?
- Rob.
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
