On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:30 AM, Ulf Lamping <ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Shaun McDonald schrieb: >> The License Working Group has spent months, well probably nearer years, on >> the license change. They know one heck of a lot more about legal systems >> than myself. They are people that I trust. Therefore I'm going to listen to >> them, and let them just get on with it. I really just wan this license >> change sorted out and completed as there are other more important things to >> be done. > > That probably reflects the problem best. > > I do *not* know the people from the License Working Group (as I guess > most mappers won't do) - therefore I have no reasons to trust them or not.
i guess introductions are in order - hi! my name is matt and i've been a contributor to OSM for over 4 years according to the website. if you've been to any of the SotM conferences we may have met, if not you can find me at most of the OSM meetups in London. it's entirely possible that, although we may not have met, you know someone who knows me. may i suggest that, if you trust them, you ask them whether they trust me? > I do *not* see it as my personal duty to build trust in a license change > that some people (I do not know) are trying to do. i absolutely understand your position. keeping up with the legal and licensing discussions is extremely time-consuming - it has consumed about 2 hours of my life per week directly in LWG meetings, and probably several times more in doing work for LWG and reading, researching and responding to legal-talk emails. it's onerous. on the other hand, the issues at stake are very important, as you say here: > I can't see (by far) *any* more important thing in OSM than what will > happen to my data in the future. the intent of CC BY-SA, as i see it, is to ensure that OSM data remains free in the same way that GPL ensures that source code remains free. a few years ago concerns were raised about whether copyright (the basis of CC BY-SA) applies to OSM's data. over the course of the intervening time several lawyers have been consulted, including Clark Asay who was able to act (pro-bono, thanks!) as counsel for OSMF. to my knowledge, every single one of these lawyers expressed grave doubts about CC BY-SA's ability to protect OSM data and ensure it remains free. but wasn't the point of CC BY-SA to protect our data and ensure it remains free? so the LWG was set up so that members of the OSM community could work together to find and refine a license which OSM could use to ensure those goals. we, like you, think that the future of the data, and it's enduring freedom, is of utmost importance. in collaboration with ODC, another organisation including an IP lawyer working pro-bono, we've developed the ODbL - an attribution and share-alike license developed specifically for databases like OSM. we believe that ODbL is better than CC BY-SA at protecting our data, and that we should move to it to ensure the future of our unique free and open geodata. cheers, matt _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk