Thanks Simon for your constructive reply. (contrary to those that call any confliction opinion a troll)
But the EC directive does not oblige us to license data, it says HOW-TO in case of IF. If we choose for no-license or just PD (give it to the world) no directive will stop us doing that. That is why I said: the necessity of a license has never been subject of discussion (but for some incidental threads). I believe that our data will be most beneficiary to the people of this world if our license terms are minimized (so PD). And at the input side (CT) we need to build trust that the number of non-PD contributions will be neglectable. Some may call that naïve, but the principle of open data was naïve too, once. I strongly believe that there are tools for that (explaining, correcting and explaining) that actually work, contradictory to obliging innocent people to sign an intimidating CT of which the consequences to them are unknown (the current CT) and have not yet been tested in court an for which we lack the financial means to really enforce them. And No, not because wikiwhatever or Google or any other organization does the same we need to mimic that. And for those who say : why did you sign up for CC-BY-SA then ? CC-BY-SA is the current situation, to be honest, 5 years ago I did not know what CC-BY-SA meant, and we certainly did not sign a corresponding CT at the time. I am unbound by a CT and free and intend to stay that. And I will never sign an agreement that legally binds me and puts me in a legal risky situation for things that I *give* to OSM. I may consider a CT for data that I provide if I was paid for it, but I'll never put my "life" at risk for nothing. Regards, Gert Gremmen -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: Simon Poole [mailto:si...@poole.ch] Verzonden: Thursday, August 11, 2011 9:57 AM Aan: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back Am 11.08.2011 09:38, schrieb ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen: > ... > It's the necessity of a license that has never been discussed about. > The need for a license has always been granted, and the discussion > only is about what license. A license is necessary because we legally need to allow our users to use our data, the license could be CC0, but still a license. Any amount of waffling will not make IPR laws go away, we simply need to deal with them. > > > CC-BY-SA is well known, respected (due to the earlier), and their newest > version > includes support for data(bases) (that what I was told). OdBL is new, > unknown > and there is no reason OSM should be the first to explore a uncertain > path. > Using a wellknown and respected system enhances it's validity and > reduces the amount > of specialists that are needed to interpret it's meaning. > (But I still prefer a full CC0 or PD license situation) > They may produce a version of CC-by-SA that will include provisions for databases. AFAIK we are years away from that materializing (nobody has ruled out changing the license in the future to CC-by-SA X.X, that's the reason that the CTs implement a mechanism for doing exactly that). And again, no amount of waffling will make the EU database directive go away, we need contributor terms and a license that take the existing IPR law situation in to account, not make believe stuff. Simon _______________________________________________ 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
