On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 9:05 PM, Robert Whittaker (OSM) < [email protected] <robert.whittaker%[email protected]>> wrote:
> Graham Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > > I am quite surprised there are many 'personal' contributors who would > want > > to refuse to have their data re-licensed - from my personal way of > looking > > at it the proposed new licence is so similar to the existing cc-by-sa > that > > it will make negligible difference. > > The ODbL license is pretty similar (though some people may have strong > feelings about SA no longer applying to 'produced works'). I would be > hopeful that many large-scale data sources (OS included) could be > persuaded to allow their data to be used under ODbL > > However, the proposed contributor terms change things significantly, > in two ways: > > First you need to give full rights to your contributions to OSMF, who > could then (subject to community approval) re-license them without SA > or By requirements. If you are a strong believer in either of these, > you may not want allow this possibility with your work. Equally if you > are a company with valuable data, it's entirely reasonable that you > will only provide it if there are SA and/or By provisions. > > Secondly, the terms would severely restrict the data sources we could > make use of. In particular they would mean that despite the SA clause > in ODbL, users of OSM data can prevent OSM from re-importing any added > data by simply refusing to sign the contributor terms. Once acid test here would be to determine whether CloudMade have already signed the contributor terms. If they haven't then it is hard not to draw some conclusions about their intentions with our data. 80n > This makes the > SA provision in ODbL pretty much worthless as far as the main OSM > database is concerned. Others can benefit from our work, but we could > be blocked from using others' improvements. > > In this debate, I think it's important to distinguish between whether > contributors are happy to re-license their contributions, and the > separate issue of whether the license should then be changed, given > (in particular) the resulting loss of data. > > Personally, I'd be happy to re-licensed my contributions under ODbL, > but I'm not sure whether I am happy with the proposed contributor > terms. (I kind of like the SA provisions.) I've yet to come to a > conclusion on whether the license should be changed -- I guess that > rather depends on the actual data loss we'll be faced with. I feel > rather more more strongly that OSM should definitely not adopt the > proposed contributor terms, for the reasons given above. > > Despite this I voted "For ODbL" on the doodle poll, since it > specifically asked about re-licensing under ODbL. (I also hadn't > appreciated the implications of the contributor terms at that point.) > If OSMF only offers a straight choice between ODbL + the current > contributor terms, or not re-licensing at all, I'd be in rather a > quandary. > > -- > Robert Whittaker > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
