[odc-discuss] Allow more time: license is not for OSM data only

[Jordan S Hatcher]

Hi Niccolo,

On 5 Mar 2009, at 13:23, Rufus Pollock wrote:

> 2009/3/5 Niccolo Rigacci <niccolo at rigacci.org>:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm following the license debate from its very beginning. Despite
>> the long time, now I feel a little pressed by the thight
>> schedule.
>
> Quite understandable. I think it will indeed be necessary to allow
> more time.

It's something we can discuss, but I want to cognizant that these  
things already have a tendency to drag out and that we have to  
recognize that more attention and more useful comments will actually  
come back _after_ it is released than before.  So I'm of the opinion  
that it is better to get a solid first draft out and then refine it  
with later versions.

[snip]

>> Several time we thought that whould be nice to hire a lawyer and
>> let him to write a suitable license.

Related to several other points that Rufus made below about timing and  
deadlines, I'd like to point out that there should still be plenty of  
time to hire a lawyer to review this licence (which is less expensive  
than drafting one) to provide feedback.

Also, though OSM has been a key use case and supporter, the ODbL was  
never intended to be solely for their use and is drafted to be  
applicable to contexts outside of geodata and even for other geodata  
projects.

Thanks

~Jordan

>
>> Consider that almost no feedback about the new license appeared
>> till now on the talk-it list, and no evidence at all on the gfoss
>> mailing list.
>>
>> The importance of a license well suited to all geodata is far
>> beyond the debate of what percentage of OSM data we will lost in
>> the transition.
>
> I quite agree. And this isn't just a license for geodata: ODC licenses
> are intended to be usable by many other communities (e.g. Libraries,
> Science etc).
>
>> I suggest to revise the schedule, to allow a more wide debate. We
>> don't need a license for OSM data, we need a license for free
>> data.
>
> If more time is needed it will be provided. At the same time having a
> deadline is a good way of encouraging people to be prompt in getting
> their comments together! I'd also encourage people to give their
> comments as specific as possible and to include suggestions for
> modified language wherever possible.
>
> I'd also point out that it will be possible upgrade the license (a
> v2.0 if you like) though that is not likely to happen that quickly
> after a v1.0 release.
>
> Rufus
>
> _______________________________________________
> odc-discuss mailing list
> odc-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/odc-discuss

____
Mr. Jordan S Hatcher, JD, LLM

jordan [at] opencontentlawyer dot com

More details at:
<http://www.jordanhatcher.com>

Open Data at:
<http://www.opendatacommons.org>