Hi Julien, On 15.05.2014 18:46, THEVENON Julien wrote: [...] > By this way the amount of data loss will be an argument pro or against a > new licence in the same way some data were loss during the migration > from CC-by_S to ODBL due to impossible relicencing
the relevant part of the CT was introduced so that OSM would not have to suffer such a painful loss again. Ideally, it should be possible to decide on a license change purely based on the merits of the proposed new license. > To be completely sure to understand you point of view, I will try to > rephrase it, please correct me if I`m wrong: > You consider that we should completely stop to use any open data sources > available in the world because in the future the community will perhaps > decide a relicencing that could be incompatible with licences of today > legal sources ? No, that would be too radical. There are quite a lot of data sources and imagery that do not restrict our license at all. Besides Public Domain sources, this category includes sources where the rights holder has specifically allowed OSM to use their data.¹ Then there are sources that ask for attribution somewhere on the OSM website, but nothing beyond that. Technically, these do limit future licenses, but I get the impression that most consider it highly unlikely that this would ever be a problem, so I'm more willing to tolerate these. But what I'm clearly opposing is importing data with a share-alike license - that is, a license that demands that we stick with one single license forever. Tobias ¹ There have been quite a few rights holders who have given OSM such an explicit permission, so it might be worthwhile to just ask them. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
