On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:40 PM, Frederik Ramm <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, > > > Kai Krueger wrote: > >> However, it is also not possible to incorporate any datasources >> such as e.g. OSM that are compatible with ODbL, as the CT prevent that as >> it >> may move to PD. >> > > I think we have already agreed on having to have exceptions for large > imports, i.e. there will be some data in OSM for which the CT are not valid. > This will be required whatever wording you choose for the license upgrade > path because some data donors do not want to sign up to the unknown. What's the definition of a large data donor? Is a dataset of at least 100,000 nodes a reasonable measure? These donors will have a veto over future relicensing as they will not have signed up to the contributor terms. Their data cannot be relicensed without their explicit permission. Is this acceptable? > > > So with respect to "concessions to the PD crowd", I think this is >> unacceptable, as it destroys a large part of what OSM is today. >> > > If at any time "a large part of what OSM is today" is imported data please > let me know as I'd like to quit then. OSM is about people and community, not > about megabytes! > > > Therefore I >> would much rather see as a consession a strengthening of the first point, >> i.e. the "I consider my data to PD" actually mean something and that one >> can >> somehow extract "clean" PD data (however you end up technically and >> legally >> defining clean) indeed as PD data. >> > > That would be most welcome. > > > However, I am not sure that the term in the CT was originally meant as a >> way >> to switch to PD or change the nature of the license in any other way. >> > > I think it was meant to basically keep your options open should ODbL turn > out to be bad, or should the environment (or the project) change in a way > that ODbL was deemed no longer suitable. Any requirement we put in the CT is > very likely to stick with us forever so it case to be very thoroughly > evaluated. 10 years from now, OSM will still be bound by what we put in > there (if OSM still exists then). > > > That line of argument is imho very reasonable and one therefore well worth >> having, but somehow we also need to find a way to make it more compatible >> with more free and open licenses such as the rather liberally licensed >> Ordanance Survey data, or the Australian CC-BY. >> > > Would not trying to become compatible with a license that *we* think > doesn't work for OSM incur all sorts of trouble? > > > This brings us back to the >> originally question of this topic. Will (or can) adding a "Attribution >> Clause" in the CT make the construct of ODbL and CT compatible with more >> free and open licenses such as CC-BY and thus allow us to retain more >> data? >> > > The original question of this topic, as mentioned in the subject, was not > adding an attribution clause in the CT, but adding a share-alike clause, > which is a whole different ball game. > > > I am not sure a SA clause would help here, as moving to a different SA >> license would still make it incompatible, so you would still not be able >> to >> agree to the CT for a SA licensed source, but I would hope that situation >> looks a little more promising for attribution only licenses. >> > > I think adding something about attribution, if properly marketed towards > what you call "the PD crowd", could be acceptable. > > > Bye > Frederik > > -- > Frederik Ramm ## eMail [email protected] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
