This strikes me as a fair and useful framework. I'll take a crack at it, with geocodes-as-produced-works in mind:
SPIRIT: Surely it's possible to avoid creating a sharealike backdoor by clarifying that geocodes become substantial only when combined to reverse engineer the map. HARM: The evidence that ODbL has produced useful data contributions from geocoding users is thin. EFFORT: I'm suggesting a guidance clarifying OSMF's opinion on which part(s) of the current license apply to a class of data use, not a license change. This is real work, but clearly achievable, since it's been done before. MANY: Obviously, geocoding services like Mapbox have an interest in gaining this flexibility. But everyone will benefit as we & others improve the map it for the geocoding use case. Nick and I have loaded more than a hundred million of openly-licensed addresses into OpenAddresses.io in the course of our work at Mapbox. (I'm not suggesting that large address imports to OSM are the path forward here; hopefully you can see my point, though.) I love the OpenAddresses project, but OSM is much more broadly useful, and I would be glad to direct that energy where it will do more good. On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 5:01 PM, Steve Coast <st...@asklater.com> wrote: > A constructive way forward may be to set out some tests that should be met > for any license change for any issue. Maybe this exists already and I > missed it. I’d suggest three tests below, but maybe someone here has better > ones. I’m not sure *who* should judge this. Maybe a vote of some kind. > > SPIRIT - Does the suggested change maintain the spirit of the license? > > (Doesn’t require much elaboration I think, maybe I’m wrong) > > HARM - Does the suggested change not harm the community or data? > > (This is the most squirrely, maybe it can be nailed down. I took it from > Lawrence Lessig’s supreme court copyright case where the judges asked him > to show the actual harm the DMCA (would have) caused.) > > EFFORT - Does the suggested change merit the effort required? > > (The last license change was a monumental effort) > > Perhaps we could replace the HARM test with the MANY test: > > MANY - Does the suggested change help the many or the few? > > Best > > Steve Coast http://stevecoast.com/ +14087310937 > > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > >
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
