The problems with the CC-BY-SA license are fully hypothetical, as there have been no real life problems. There have been some hesitations at commercial users of OSM data with the Share Alike part, but OSM is not bound to enforce the SA part of the current license either, so we could just allow them to use data without SA. I do not feel any particular sympathy for the commercial users of our data to the extent that we need to jeopardize OSM just for their interests.
My sympathy is with those who do not have access to data, such as in emergency situations. OSM was best in Haiti. No real problem has occurred with CC-BY-SA, and no initiative has done more harm to OSM in history than then the insisted proposal to change the license (-that-does-not-fit-:CC-BY-SA) to (-the-license-that-cannot-be-enforced-:ODBL) by (-the-people-that-do-not-own-OSM-). OSMF is playing a legal game with the interest of the community. Since months a lot of active mappers have stopped contributing just because of uncertainty about their data. Some of us try to minimize the number of refused CT (about 400) but I have the strong feeling that those are mainly found in the old core of the first 1000 of OSM mappers, the founders that were interested in real free data. The 102000 new signups that agreed with the CT probably just signed (but I cannot prove that) because they were not given a choice, nor knew about the history of OSM, and signed a CT just as they sign one upon installing a new piece of shareware / i-don't-care-ware. I almost fully support the reasoning of TIM, just do not understand why he tried this in private. He must have his reasons. Over all, the procedures of the introduction of ODBL and CT have a strong smell of -this-must-happen-regardless-what-and-who, without anyone mad really clear why this is absolutely necessary. Gert -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: Rob Myers [mailto:r...@robmyers.org] Verzonden: donderdag 9 juni 2011 19:30 Aan: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Private negotiations. On 09/06/11 18:18, Nakor Osm wrote: > > This is wrong: remove the CTs and leave the database licensed as it is > today and no data needs to be removed. The license today has problems. Both the license and the way that the license is chosen need to change. - Rob. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
