[odc-discuss] John Wilbanks comments on osm-legal-talk

Wed Mar 25 14:29:38 UTC 2009

Dear All,

I was forwarded an email which when to osm-legal-talk from John
Wilbanks (see below) which I wanted to respond to. BTW: I'm not on
osm-legal-talk so if someone who is on there wishes to forward this
response back there please do.

Regards,

Rufus

I should say these are my personal comments and I've greatest respect
for John. I know that he, and SC, are strongly committed to the public
domain only approach to data but this is not a view I agree with -- as
he knows well.

Just as we permit attribution and share-alike in "open" content and
code licenses I think it is reasonable to do so in "open" data
licenses. Of course, communities may wish to go down a particular
route -- in code. for example, Python stdlib code is always under a
very liberal MIT-type license while the linux kernel goes for GPL --
but I feel that is a choice for a community and not one that should be
taken a priori by a decision that PD is the "only way".

To respond on some of John's specific comments:

1. We want participation from all communities. At the same time I
don't understand why publishing license requires consulting with
everyone prior to release. The original GPL and CC licenses did not
have to wait to consult with every possible user community before
publishing them. Waiting to consult with everyone possible is a recipe
for never doing anything. (I'd also add: If the license is not suited
for some particular community they don't have to use it!)

2. More comment/discussion time. I think it is virtual certainty this
will occur. At the same time I'd point out that these licenses have
been out and circulating for over a year a half [1] and that it often
takes some kind of a deadline to get proper responses. I'd also point
out there will, undoubtedly be future updates as there have been with
CC licenses, the GPL etc.

[1]:<http://blogs.talis.com/nodalities/2007/09/seeking_a_licence_for_open_dat.php>

3. Interested parties from other communities (such as John) should
probably post here rather than e.g. on OSM's lists as, I would
imagine, OSM lists want to stay focus on the relation of the license
to OSM. Similarly, John seems unhappy about the fact that the OSM
working group consists of people from OSM -- but why shouldn't it?
Other communities concerned with the ODbL should get involved with
Open Data Commons not with OSM (who would imagine have their own
concerns)!

We'd welcome representation from other interested communities on the
ODC lists -- and, as appropriate, on the ODC Advisory Council who are
the group ultimately responsible for the licenses.

4. Other communities interested in the ODbL. I'd start by pointing out
that the original work on the ODbL was done for Talis who mainly work
with library data (bibliographic records). That original draft, done
before the PDDL or CCZero, included SA and attribution provisions. 4
years ago (back in early 2005) I remember being involved in an early
attempt to draft a license for geodata which would have been promoted
to the Ordnance Survey (this was going to be an adaptation of CC by-sa
or, and non-openly, CC by-nc-sa). Since then I've encountered several
communities using CC by-sa or something similar for data. I'd also
mention that much of the time, at the moment, those providing data
don't think about the license at all (so the issue is moot).

5. I don't see the ODbL or any other open license as enclosing the
public domain (just as I don't see the CC licenses or the GPL as
enclosing the public domain). If material is in the PD it remains in
the PD -- no license can change that.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: John Wilbanks <wilbanks at creativecommons.org>
Date: 23 March 2009 13:44:05 GMT
To: legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL comments from Creative Commons
Reply-To: "Licensing and other legal discussions."
<legal-talk at openstreetmap.org>

> But open data is much more than just science and education. It's more
> than OSM; it's more than maps. The assiduous
> how-late-is-my-sodding-train-today people on our town website, forIn terms of license choice where that is relevant I feel

> example, are creating a database that could potentially be licensed
> openly.

Well put.

Then let's open up the license working group to science and education
and OSM and more.

Then let's do a real analysis of the environmental impact of the license
on other communities where the PD is already working and could be
enclosed by an "open" database license.

Then let's have more than a short window of comment time.

But as far as I can tell, this is an OSM driven event. I don't know
anyone outside OSM as a community rep that's on the working group. Yet
it's being called an Open Database License for cross-community use.

We spent about three years working on this across a range of scientific
disciplines. CC has analyzed it in the context of education and culture.

We came to the PD conclusion. OSM doesn't want to go PD - that's fine,
in the end. But when you call the license written by and for a
streetmapping community a solution for the rest of the world when the
DBs and norms involved vary so much...well, it's odd to then get mad
when the rest of the world comes in and comments on it.

Your community cares more about reciprocity than interoperability.
That's fine and dandy for you. But you're proposing to promote your
solution, a complex one engineered and tuned for you, as something that
is a generic solution *without doing the research* as to how it will
work in generic situations. That's not fine and dandy.

I am unaware of a single community other than OSM looking at this
license. I've asked OKF and got the null response. Does anyone here know
of another? I'd really like to know.

Trust me, I have a lot of other things to do with my time. But as long
as this license gets promoted as a generic solution for "open data" it
gets debated inside science, and that has the direct consequence of
enclosing the public domain in my space. My job is to prevent that. If
the name could simply be changed I would have a lot less problems here...

jtw