Licence and Legal FAQ/OSMF Vote/Why You Should Vote No: Difference between revisions

This page provided a place for people to state their case about '''Why You Should Vote No''' to the proposed license change. It provides a good starting point for reading about objections to this license change and why.

 

 

A summary of these points was put to the LWG. A [[OSM:Questions_to_LWG_on_ODbL|partial response]] was made.--[[OSM:User:TimSC|TimSC]] 16:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

-- Comment added by [[OSM:User:Doctau]] - 12:28, 5 December 2009

 

 

=== OSM's Contributor Terms are not compatible with ODbL ===

-- Comment added by [[OSM:User:80n]] 19:08, 5 December 2009

 

 

=== The OSM Foundation will have unlimited rights to all your data ===

-- Comment added by [[OSM:User:80n]] 19:08, 5 December 2009

 

 

=== The current license is not broken ===

The proponents of ODbL argue that the current license is not suitable for data. This rests on the premise that your contributions are just facts with no creative effort and facts are not protected by normal copyright. While this is a matter for the courts it is far from proven that contributions are not protected by copyright.

 

 

=== Even if the current licence is less strong than it could be, there is no evidence it causes any problem in practice ===

-- Comment added by [[OSM:User:80n]] 19:19, 5 December 2009

 

 

=== Even if the new licence is better, the cost of switching is too high ===

(and I second that) but we can't fall at the implementation stage. --[[OSM:User:TimSC|TimSC]] 20:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

 

 

==== Fundamental flaw in voting: How to treat non voters? ====

 

Click for

 

==== Fundamental imbalance in voting: New contributors, forced to accept ODbL will eventually outnumber CC-BY-SA contributors. ====

 

Click for

 

=== ODbL licensed data can be reverse engineered ===

-- Comment added by [[OSM:User:80n]] 19:47, 5 December 2009

 

 

=== Who owns OSM? You! ===

-- Comment added by [[OSM:User:Gerhard]] 20:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

 

 

=== Contributor Terms can be changed ===

[[OSM:User:80n|80n]] 14:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

 

 

=== Incomplete History for Split Ways ===

[[OSM:User:80n|80n]] 18:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

 

 

=== All Share-alike Licences Create Ambiguity ===

Footnote: if the ODbL is adequate, which does OSMF need rights to make amendments to the license?

 

 

=== Making Copies of your maps may not be allowed ===

The intention of the current CC license is that all derivative work is share alike (the extent that it achieves this is disputed). The ODbL intentionally changes this to allow raster maps to be of any license. This might not be desirable as some people prefer use of their work to be continued to be kept share alike to promote reuse of publications. This would prevent merging of OSM with data sets with less free license terms. I tend to think of those data sets to be inferior due to their terms of use. I therefore don't necessarily want my work being mixed with restrictive mapping data. This is analogous to the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html LGPL vs. GPL] in software licensing with respect to relicensing AFAIK. --[[OSM:User:TimSC|TimSC]] 11:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

 

 

==== Not all questions answered on the Use Case page ====

I hate to see several hundred manhours lost by LWG, but I think it would be better than going through with something this dangerous. Even if everybody was pro-ODbL (and they seem not to be), some people simply will not reachable anymore to give their approval of license change, and removing even just their data (and all other data people have built up over it as is needed) is too high a cost. Note that most of this comment would probably be exactly the same if it was the question of switching to CC0 or Public Domain - it is simply too late to change the licensing at this stage of project with so many contributors without much damage. --[[OSM:User:Mnalis|mnalis]] 20:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

 

 

===Staying with CC-BY-SA for now and switching only if it's proven invalid===

So I hope I've shown why staying for CC-BY-SA for now is a '''win in any case'''. --[[OSM:User:Mnalis|mnalis]] 19:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

 

 

===Not really Share Alike===

Also, proposed scheme (ODbL + contributor terms) [http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2009-December/000726.html does not allow import] of other ODbL-licensed content into OSM. So it is never Share-Alike license on the import side, and it is not Share-Alike license on the export side since the EvilNavCo can circumvent it easily. That is completely against CC-BY-SA spirit (which we are led to believe the new ODbL+CT would be "almost alike, only better protected").

 

 

===ODbL comments from Creative Commons===

*The ODbL Imposes Contractual Obligations Even in the Absence of Copyright

 

 

=== Not clear if single contributors will be able to sue license violators ===

Didn't user B create some kind of derivative work of User A's data? Really, what would happen in such a case?