On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 06:49:37AM -0500, Rob Myers wrote: > Unless that is the only way of ensuring that everyone continues to have the > advantage of effectively all rights to the data and that organisation is > OSM. ;-)
Well, yes, so why isn’t OSM just going PD (or near equivalent)? :) (Yes, I know you’d like that, Frederik.) If share-alike is truly wanted (and I know it isn’t by some), then it should truly be adopted. If the licence isn’t sufficient to provide all of the necessary rights for share-alike then how is it a share-alike licence? (To me the ODbL itself seems reasonable.) OSMF’s concern appears to be that they may need to go through yet another round of changing the licence. To mitigate that, they choose to go for contributor terms that give pretty much unlimited rights. I understand the need to progress with licensing that better fits OSM, and that the ODbL in its current form may turn out not to “fit” OSM. I don’t understand the need to give OSMF anything more than the rights given under the ODbL which includes an upgrade clause (and maybe CC-by-sa for compatibility). I’m not trying to put this on the some level as anti-terror laws, or other intrusive laws, so please try to think in perspective when I say: It rings of the inflated laws that are provided, as “national security” to combat “terrorism”. They are over-encompassing, and that’s saying it nicely. So, to “protect” OSM itself, we make people give all* rights to OSMF, instead of the minimal rights necessary. *I know there’s a clause that restricts it, but it is only restricted by vote (and the undefined and therefore ambiguous term of “a free and open license”), and is subject to abuse however unlikely the chances may be. This option should not exist. Protecting the original OSM is an admirable cause, but is something that I think does not need to be included in the contributor terms or the licence. If the licence was truly share-alike, there would be no need to specify the extra conditions on contribution*, and if anybody wanted to incorporate it back into the original OSM source, they could *I’m fully aware the GNU project requires copyright assignment. I’m an associate member of the FSF, but that doesn’t mean I agree with copyright assignment (or effectively giving all rights to another). People could contribute to OSM, OSM could provide the aggregated data, others could use it and modify it. It could go back into OSM, if allowed. I think the ODbL is reasonable with regards to the share-alike on the database, though I haven’t been through it with a fine-toothed comb, and nor do I have the legal understanding to be able to comment authoritatively. The contributor terms, however, are far too broad, and give OSMF rights above the licence itself. 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 [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
