Re: [OSM-legal-talk] To calm some waters - about Section 3
On 27/08/2010, at 1:36 AM, Anthony wrote: Or you could just assign the task of deciding what it means to someone. Whether or not a future license is share alike shall be determined by a vote of the OSMF board. Sure, except I don't know that will really help. If people want certainty that all future licenses will have certain conditions, then presumably they'd want that in legal form, i.e. in the contributor terms. I highly doubt there are enough people in OSMF (and among the active contributors) with such lack of integrity that a switch to a PD-like license could occur under those conditions. I agree. The whole point of the relicensing clause is that we don't know what we'll need in the future. Others do, at least, aside from fixes to the license which are propagated by the originator of the license (License X or any later version). I meant we as a community don't know what we'll need in future to reflect out wants. Various groups of people have opinions on that, but I don't think that we can say the OSM community agrees on what we want to happen in 5 or 10 years. With all the trust that's being put into ODC's lawyers, I'm surprised there isn't more trust that ODbL 1.0 or any later version published by ODC will be adequate. +1. If we want the ability to relicense to fix problems, ODbL's upgrade clause should (I would hope) be enough. If we want the ability to do a relicense other than to fix problems, we're probably not going to want to be bound by what it contains. Consider for example if OSM had originally had the CTs along with the CC-BY-SA license. I would argue strongly that we couldn't then re-license to ODbL under the CTs because ODbL's version of share-alike isn't what people would have assumed it meant when they signed up. And you'd probably lose that argument (even though I'd agree with you). ODbL has been sold as a sharealike license from the get go, by Steve, by the LWG, by the statements attached to the poll... I was surprised they got away with it, but they did. If you could successfully argue that, couldn't just as easily argue that it would allow a change to one that doesn't require Derived Databases to be under the same license? That is what I assume most people want a share alike requirement to actually mean. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] To calm some waters - about Section 3
On 26 August 2010 01:05, Sebastian Hohmann m...@s-hohmann.de wrote: Starting a new project would be like rebuilding the whole house, just to make it a new color. The upgrade clause is like repainting the house, but restricting this to only very few colors, might make a future owner unhappy. Well I think someone wanting a PD project would need to start from scratch anyway as it would be hard for them to demonstrate that any existing data wasn't encumbered with other licenses given the wide use of imports and tracing in lots of countries. Kevin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] To calm some waters - about Section 3
Hi, Kevin Peat wrote: Well I think someone wanting a PD project would need to start from scratch anyway as it would be hard for them to demonstrate that any existing data wasn't encumbered with other licenses given the wide use of imports and tracing in lots of countries. I think so too, but I think this is a problem that we don't need to solve now. Should the project want to change their license in 10 years, then they will have to think about that then. It is quite possible that a data source which we have used for tracing and which makes certain demands at the moment, stops making these demands in the future (eg there might be a source that currently says CCBYSA or ODbL use only but in 5 years the company has another product which is twice as good, and thus decides to lift any license restrictions on the old, which would of course also lift the restriction on the data in OSM). There's no reason to limit the options of a future OSM by perpetuating some currently existing outside restrictions which may cease to exist at any time. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] To calm some waters - about Section 3
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 10:04:01AM +0100, Rob Myers wrote: So I don't think setting a minimum attribution level is a good idea, at least from a user freedom point of view. I agree. I mentioned a minimum attribution because others seem to want that. The LWG and/or OSMF only seem to be considering two options other than the explicitly named licences: Attribution, or attribution + share‐alike. I care much less about attribution than I do about the freedoms of users of OSM and derivatives. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] To calm some waters - about Section 3
On 26/08/2010, at 2:12 AM, Simon Ward wrote: I don’t know if that’s how legal types read it, but couldn’t it also be taken transitively as follows: 1. CTs allow licensing under ODbL 1.0; 2. ODbL 1.0 allows licensing under a compatible licence, or later version of the ODbL; 3. By (1) and (2), CTs allow licencing under ODbL 1.0, which includes licences compatible with ODbL 1.0, or a later version of the ODbL? I believe so, via: 1) OSMF releases a copy of the data they collected under the CTs with a ODbL 1.0 license 2) Someone takes that copy and then re-releases it under ODbL 1.1 There is no reason that someone in step can't be the OSMF as well. However I think they couldn't release _only_ under ODbL 1.1, they have to do both ODbL 1.0 (from the first step) and 1.1, unless f they could get around that by releasing non-publicly in the first step. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] To calm some waters - about Section 3
On 25/08/2010, at 5:41 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: There is also a very practical reason against fixing anything, and *specifically* a share-alike requirement, in the CT, and that is that in order to make *clear* what you want you will have to write half a license into the CT. I completely agree - if you want to add a clause requiring that future licenses be share alike you'll need to come up with a good definition of what that means, and once you do you're probably made it impossible to relicense. The whole point of the relicensing clause is that we don't know what we'll need in the future. Consider for example if OSM had originally had the CTs along with the CC-BY-SA license. I would argue strongly that we couldn't then re-license to ODbL under the CTs because ODbL's version of share-alike isn't what people would have assumed it meant when they signed up. If I agreed to the CTs along with CC-BY-SA, I would expect that share alike meant rendered images would have to be under the same license, but ODbL doesn't require that. For the people who want a share-alike requirement in the CTs, how do you want it defined? If we want to require Derived Databases to be under the same license, but not Produced Works or Insubstantial Extractions, you'll have to define those terms. In addition, you'll probably need to define Publicly Use and many of the rest too. Once you've defined all of those in the CTs, then realise that it means we probably can never use the CTs to relicense because the target licence has slightly different definitions of those terms or doesn't have the exact same requirements. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] To calm some waters - about Section 3
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 06:56:15PM +1000, James Livingston wrote: On 25/08/2010, at 5:41 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: There is also a very practical reason against fixing anything, and *specifically* a share-alike requirement, in the CT, and that is that in order to make *clear* what you want you will have to write half a license into the CT. I completely agree - if you want to add a clause requiring that future licenses be share alike you'll need to come up with a good definition of what that means, and once you do you're probably made it impossible to relicense. The whole point of the relicensing clause is that we don't know what we'll need in the future. The best way to avoid such problems with a future licensing clause is not to have such a clause at all, or stick to explicitly named licences. If share‐alike needs to be defined, then so does “free and open”, because many people have different ideas of what that means, and we haven’t referred to any standard definition. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] To calm some waters - about Section 3
Anthony wrote: Another possibility is to assign the task of deciding what share alike means to Creative Commons. Of course, that isn't likely to work if you want to go with the ODbL... I suspect CC's answer would be similar to http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-February/001982.html cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Re-OSM-legal-talk-To-calm-some-waters-about-Section-3-tp5459411p5466160.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] To calm some waters - about Section 3
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 12:13:26AM -0400, Richard Weait wrote: We can do the license change now because it is the right thing to do, or we can do the license change now and make future license changes simpler for future OpenSteetMap communities. OSMF have chosen DbCL for individual database contents. That leaves quite some flexibility in how individual contents may be used and distributed without taking into account the extraction from the database that is covered by the ODbL. There is already the ability to change the licence without the CTs: There is an upgrade clause in the ODbL itself. With the CTs, explicit distribution under the terms of CC by-sa 2.0 is given (for compatibility). This licence also includes a form of upgradability. I think the above upgradability makes the clause in the CTs unnecessary, but I am willing to compromise: I suggest at least some minimum attribution and share alike provisions (although I personally care less about attribution), mirroring those provided by the ODbL: * Attribution of the direct source of the data set. That is, no requirement for attribution chaining, no requirement for attributing every single content contribution. * Share alike on datasets. I agree that extending share alike to things like rendered maps, routes from route planners, etc (produced works in ODbL terminology) are outside the scope for share alike. (Well, I agree with the ODbL, just not the CTs.) Remember that “share alike” generally only means the reciprocality applies when the work is distributed to another entity but you may want to explicitly state this too. If we leave out a relicensing provision entirely, the future OSM community will have to do this all over again. See above, the licences have upgradability. All of it. Not just casting about for the new license and convincing the majority of the community that the new license is right, but also the figuring out what to do about the data touched by those who disagree. Eliminating that last point seems like a worthy improvement to make to the process. I think it is unnecessary to completely eliminate it. Future license changes will still be hard. Flexibility vs clear licence guarantee. I think there should be some compromise at some point, a minimum level to be set that says “beyond this point we will either have to fork¹, or gain more complete cooperation of the community, not just 2/3rds of it. Before you repeat statements about the policies of the GNU project and the Apache Software Foundation, I can’t say I completely agree with their methods either, and thus have not contributed anything more than small patches to them (although I do support the stated aims of the FSF). ¹So if OSMF desperately wanted to remove minimum attribution and share alike without complete cooperation, they might be expected to continue supporting the existing project. We choose LGPL for one project and AfferoGPL for another. Use of the LGPL is discouraged by the FSF[1]. [1]: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html But we don't choose the license before we know the context. If we don’t know the context now, why are we changing the licence? It sounds to me like OSMF and LWG are scared that they haven’t made the right decision. This doesn’t instill a lot of confidence in them. I would like to see some certainty from them. I'm surprised that some in the community believe that they know the context facing the future community better than the future community will know it when they see it. Above, I allow for changing the licence, but ensuring some minimum requirements are met. This is a safety net, not a push back. I'm disappointed that some fingers are pointed at OSMF and LWG as not worthy of trusting with a future license change. See above: I’m not filled with confidence about their decisions. Partly that is disappointing because OSMF and LWG could be any one of you. I’m a member of OSMF, and I have been voicing my opinions, and supporting those of others. [More trust blather] OSMF doesn’t trust the contributors (some rightly so). It goes both ways. But there will be future license changes. Even if they are minor version changes to ODbL v1.1 there will be changes. Upgrade clause is in ODbL 1.0, see above. GPL is on version 3[2]. Licence does not include upgrade clause, but the recommended “copyright statement” suggests including one. People can choose not to. (My standard blurb was version 2 only until I had chance to review the final v3 licence and be happy with it. Now my blurb covers v2 or v3 without any “or later”.) The FSF also gives promises about the terms in future versions of the GPL (although even from v2 to v3 people disputed that the FSF went by their own promises). CC-By is on version 3[3]. CC-By and family include upgradability in the terms. We know that future licenses will change because the world is changing. That is why it is important to
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] To calm some waters - about Section 3
Hi, Simon Biber wrote: I and many others need a firm commitment to ensure contributions continue to be protected by attribution and share-alike in the future. -1 (I mean, you may need that but you shouldn't get it. As an aside I also want to point out that the use of continue to be protected in your sentence does not fit with current wisdom about CC-BY-SA and our data.) I am against trying to force our will on OSM in 10 years. OSM in ten years will have a larger community and a larger data volume by orders of magnitude. I don't think it is right to force their hand in any way over and above the necessary minimum just because a few of us think so. What exactly the necessary minimum is, is subject to discussion; I could imagine that the necessary minimum perhaps includes that we fix an attribution requirement, but a share-alike requirement would certainly be going too far. It is bad enough if the share-alike minority force their will on the rest of the project now; we must not allow them to force their will on everybody who is in OSM in 10 years' time. Oops. That wasn't exactly calming the waters, was it. But it needs to be said. There is also a very practical reason against fixing anything, and *specifically* a share-alike requirement, in the CT, and that is that in order to make *clear* what you want you will have to write half a license into the CT. Imagine that we put the phrase a free and open license with attribution and share-alike into the CT. Imagine further that, at some point in the future, a change to ODbL 1.1 is debated, and that ODbL 1.1 only had minor changes over ODbL 1.0. Then someone comes along and says: Sorry guys, the CT say that the new license must be share-alike. But ODbL is not properly share-alike, see, it allows non-share-alike produced works, and it allows non-share-alike extracts if they are not substantial! Bummer. At that time, we'll have one hell of a discussion about what exactly qualifies as a share-alike license and whether ODbL 1.1 is covered by the CT. To avoid that, you would have to write into the CT exactly what you mean by share-alike. By doing so, the CT would become much longer and more complex, and drastically reduce the choice of license in the future even within the pool of share-alike licenses. Inevitably, we would write what we *today* think is right into the CT - but the whole point of allowing future OSM communities to choose their license is that they may adapt. Trying to force their hand - when their contributions will vastly outnumber ours, and they will be 10 or hundred times more than we are now, would be overbearing. I don't think it would be morally right. The amount of data we have collected and the amount of time we have invested will, in 10 years' time, be minuscle compared to what the project is then, and using that contribution to justify wanting to have a say in OSM for all time is just greedy. I am aware that this is a moral statement and that it will be required to do slightly less than what is morally right, for practical reasons. And that's ok; we're all pragmatic. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] To calm some waters - about Section 3
On 25 August 2010 17:41, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I am against trying to force our will on OSM in 10 years. OSM in ten years will have a larger community and a larger data volume by orders of magnitude. I don't think it is right to force their hand in any way over and above the necessary minimum just because a few of us think so. You keep making the same logic fallacy about making OSM more free, you also keep assuming the user base will keep growing, but you are also at the same time not asking the community what they want you are assuming you know what's best. It's this kind of flagrant arrogance that can lead to a projects demise, what's the point in considering things 10 years from now if there is no contributors in 10 years from now because you stifled their options from sourcing data too much? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] To calm some waters - about Section 3
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 09:44:13AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: Simon Ward wrote: OSMF have chosen DbCL for individual database contents. That leaves quite some flexibility in how individual contents may be used and distributed without taking into account the extraction from the database that is covered by the ODbL. I would be interested to discussing that flexibility further. Can you give examples for using and distributing individual contents that way? Without having first extracted it from the database, I can’t give any, because the extraction from the database is covered by the rights on the database. It is theoretically possible that your extraction is not substantial: You could have a way of taking the data for an “item” and inserting its data into a blog. It may be contained in your blog’s database, you might add a couple of extra attributes for your blog, but still not be required to distribute any part of your blog’s database, including the modified item. If we assumed there were rights in this extraction (e.g. sweat of the brow, involving some decision about how to map it, or artistic), then the licence on the content comes into play and you should also abide by those terms. If the licence were stronger than DbCL, for example including attribution and/or share alike, you may be required to list the contributors and/or also provide access to a suitable “source” form (e.g. OSM format) of the data. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] To calm some waters - about Section 3
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 09:41:27AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: I am against trying to force our will on OSM in 10 years. OSM in ten years will have a larger community and a larger data volume by orders of magnitude. I don't think it is right to force their hand in any way over and above the necessary minimum just because a few of us think so. I’d like to see the length of copyright (and database right) terms reduced too! Can we encourage our respective governments to do that, and at least put all geodata providers on the same playing field (if not also for other works)? Another suggestion then, if you would like not to force our will on “OSM in 10 years”: Instead of leaving it open to any free licence, how about we set set the minimum attribution and share alike provisions and say that it will be subject to review in X years? (Five?) Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] To calm some waters - about Section 3
On 08/25/2010 09:28 AM, Simon Ward wrote: Instead of leaving it open to any free licence, how about we set set the minimum attribution and share alike provisions and say that it will be subject to review in X years? (Five?) For data, attribution is only a matter of freedom to the extent that it's not a restriction on it. *Except* where it advertises to users the freedom that they have to use the data. If a way of achieving that without attribution could be found, attribution would no longer be necessary. So I don't think setting a minimum attribution level is a good idea, at least from a user freedom point of view. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] To calm some waters - about Section 3
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 09:20:18AM +0100, Simon Ward wrote: I would be interested to discussing that flexibility further. Can you give examples for using and distributing individual contents that way? Without having first extracted it from the database, I can’t give any, because the extraction from the database is covered by the rights on the database. If the database right holder (OSMF) provides an exported extract of the database, does the use and distribution of that extract by others still come under database rights (and the ODbL)? My thinking is the rights probably still apply, because the rights cover an arrangement of the data, not dependent on the arrangement provided (the internal database format, a direct dump from the database, or in OSM planet format). If that’s the case, I wouldn’t mind seeing a statement to the effect that the database rights either will not be enforced on the CC by-sa dumps or outline some permissions mirroring the CC by-sa copyright licence (because CC by-sa covers only copyright, so database rights remain with… someone). Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] To calm some waters - about Section 3
On 25 August 2010 08:41, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: It is bad enough if the share-alike minority force their will on the rest of the project now; we must not allow them to force their will on everybody who is in OSM in 10 years' time. I find this oft-repeated argument to be totally bogus. It's like saying that I shouldn't paint my house because the person who owns it in 10 years time might not like it. If OSMers in 2020 don't like the license they are free to change it or to start a new project just as people are today. We should make a decision on what seems like the best choice as we see it today not what someone may want in 10 years time. I am quite happy for OSMF to have the power to upgrade to newer versions of ODBL as the license matures to save all this hassle again but there should be some sensible limits on what the OSMF can do otherwise it is open to abuse. Kevin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] To calm some waters - about Section 3
Simon Biber schrieb: I want to contribute my mapping work to a community who will respect my wishes that the work remain free. This includes that no-one should be allowed to make a derived work and not allow others to have the same freedom over the derived work. This is the essence of what the FSF calls copyleft, and what CC calls share-alike. Both allow non-free derivatives of some kind, the CC share-alike even more so than the GPL or LGPL. At least that's how I understand things, and it's good that way, but then IANAL. Of course, in many jurisdictions, the data you or I added to OSM is probably not even protectable in any way, if what I heard is correct. Robert Kaiser ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] To calm some waters - about Section 3
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 3:24 AM, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote: There is already the ability to change the licence without the CTs: There is an upgrade clause in the ODbL itself. Actually, section 3 will make it harder to upgrade. Under the CT section 3, the database can only be licensed under ODbL 1.0 for the database and DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database; CC-BY-SA 2.0; or another free and open license. Which other free and open license is chosen by a vote of the OSMF membership and approved by at least a 2/3 majority vote of active contributors. So if ODbL upgrades to 1.1, there has to be a 2/3 majority vote of active contributors before OSMF can switch. Anyone making a derivative of the OSMF database can use 1.1, but OSMF can't. What this means practically speaking is that until there is a 2/3 majority vote, the database is under ODbL 1.0 *and* ODbL 1.1. Presumably if the bug in ODbL 1.0 is serious enough there won't be a problem getting that 2/3 majority vote though. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] To calm some waters - about Section 3
Kevin Peat schrieb: On 25 August 2010 08:41, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: It is bad enough if the share-alike minority force their will on the rest of the project now; we must not allow them to force their will on everybody who is in OSM in 10 years' time. I find this oft-repeated argument to be totally bogus. It's like saying that I shouldn't paint my house because the person who owns it in 10 years time might not like it. If OSMers in 2020 don't like the license they are free to change it or to start a new project just as people are today. Starting a new project would be like rebuilding the whole house, just to make it a new color. The upgrade clause is like repainting the house, but restricting this to only very few colors, might make a future owner unhappy. Sebastian ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] To calm some waters - about Section 3
On Sun, 22 August, 2010 11:55:27 PM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote: As I'm interested in keeping my data within OSM and find a common ground with rest of you, I'm delighted to see that requests to specify 'free and open license' in CT section 3 has been taken into account[1]. Huge thanks and sorry for any emotional storm it have caused. [1] http://www.abalakov.com/?p=56 Now this has been changed again, seemingly to dilute the given assurance that the Contributor Terms will be amended to make clear that this refers to an attribution and share-alike license. My reading of the changes means it now only says that some explanation will be made as to whether this refers to an attribution and/or share-alike license. I and many others need a firm commitment to ensure contributions continue to be protected by attribution and share-alike in the future. Without that, if this license change goes ahead, my survey work over the past year, and that of many others, seems likely to be useless for OSM. This is both for a philosophical reason (I don't agree with the open-ended contributor terms) and for a practical reason (I have used aerial photography to confirm some positions, under an agreement that the resulting work could only be released under CC-BY-SA). I want to contribute my mapping work to a community who will respect my wishes that the work remain free. This includes that no-one should be allowed to make a derived work and not allow others to have the same freedom over the derived work. This is the essence of what the FSF calls copyleft, and what CC calls share-alike. It's also what I assumed was one of the core beliefs of the OSM community, since the license at the time I signed up was explicitly a share-alike license, CC-BY-SA. For that philosophical reason, I also agree with the stance of NearMap, which has publically said it cannot accept the current contributor terms, because they could allow derived work to be released under a non-share-alike licence without the agreement of the original authors. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] To calm some waters - about Section 3
On 25 August 2010 14:13, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: I'm surprised that some individuals in the community are pushing back so hard on free and open not being the right approach. Some would Would that be GPL free and open of BSD free and open ? As I said before, why is most software GPL when some are pushing for the data to be more like BSD? Free and Open have to be 2 of the most abused terms out there because as Simon pointed out, they can mean the complete opposite of each other depending who you are talking to and this ambiguity isn't a good thing to some people, also as Simon pointed out one of the reason I contributed to OSM is because it required share-a-like, and I won't contribute to a mapping project that doesn't support this moral objective, I'm not trying to force my morals on others, but I'm disappointed that others are trying to force theirs on me. If they want a PD project so much why don't they start their own on that basis instead of sneaking things in through the back door? I'm surprised again because future OSMF or LWG will be just like you, or in fact actually be some of you. Or your children. Or your grandchildren. Yes, there has never been a political debate in history that hasn't been gamed or won through dirty tricks at all. Assuming the current 12-15k number of active contributors I only need to setup 30k sock puppet accounts and that 2/3 majority will shift very quickly in my favour, and if I do it by using cheap labour like some companies do with breaking captchas I don't see this being much of a problem for a few thousand dollars... which is pocket change to some companies... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
