On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:10 PM, Julio Costa Zambelli <julio.co...@openstreetmap.cl> wrote: > We will have to ask the agencies to agree with the Contributor Terms > but if we are changing to a PD license disguised as BY-SA (via the CT) > they probably will not cooperate.
OSMF is not moving to "a PD license disguised as BY-SA", OSMF would like to move to ODbL. however, it has to be pointed out that CC BY-SA might be described as "a PD license disguised as BY-SA", since many lawyers (including those at Creative Commons) think that CC BY-SA is unsuitable for factual data (such as geodata) and may not be enforceable in many jurisdictions (such as the USA). > Even if the point four of the CT > works as enough attribution (who knows). whether section 4 is enough to allow CC BY compatibility is something that OSMF is currently seeking legal advice on. > As I said most of the agencies just asked us to attribute the source > and we told them the way that we will do it. The ODbL (and for this > matter any BY-SA License) does not seem to pose a problem to that, but > that point three of the CT certainly may provoke a _huge_ mess. if (as i hope) the lawyers say that section 4 of the CT ensures compatibility with CC BY, why would section 3 pose a problem? if section 4 requires that OSMF provide a method of attribution then that couldn't be taken away by changes under section 3 unless a new version of the CT were released - which would require asking every single contributor and re-raising the problem of data loss: the very problem that section 3 is supposed to alleviate. > What is the idea of putting that condition there? If some people wants > to migrate to Public Domain (and I have read many of them in this > list), why not ask directly for a PD migration acceptance instead of > asking people to accept this kind of CT as part of a BY-SA license > change? migration to PD is not part of the plan. the motivation for that section is simply that needs and requirements change over time. when the project was started CC BY-SA seemed like a perfectly valid license. we're now 6 years on, and 2 years into trying to change the license, because we were wrong about CC BY-SA. while we think ODbL is far, far better - do we want to have the spectre of data loss again in another 6 years if we prove to be wrong again? > If this is voted as a package I will obviously have to vote against > the change (I do not want to see 7/8 of the Chilean highways > disappearing from the map in one day, not to say many POIs that we > were about to import right now [hospitals, schools, etc.]). no-one wants to see any data loss. that's one of the many reasons we're moving from a BY-SA license to another BY-SA license. while there is an option to declare your preference with regard to PD, this is for information only. cheers, matt _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
