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

[Jordan S Hatcher]

Thank you again MJ for all your comments. A more complete response  
below.

On 7 Mar 2009, at 10:35, MJ Ray wrote:

> Jordan S Hatcher <jordan at opencontentlawyer.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Why would someone hold that opinion?  Just as a reaction to a
> perception of a tendency to drag out?

Please see my earlier email. In short, I believe that lots of  
businesses, users, academics, lawyers, etc will not produce as in- 
depth commentary on something that isn't an option for them or has no  
impact on them as the draft is in "beta".

For example, we got little feedback on the PDDL (all the way to  
publication). It wasn't until OSM began considering the ODbL as an  
actual possibility that we got significant feedback. (None of that was  
to say that the feedback we did receive however wasn't both good and  
very much wanted).

Now on to address some of the other comments:

>
> I think the problems around each new licence and each new version of
> existing licences of even an established group like FSF shows that
> later versions will be equally traumatic.  If the first version
> contains what we think may be flaws, then some people will regard them
> as features and be very unhappy when those flaws are removed.  The
> authors would probably be accused loudly of bait-and-switch and other
> less pleasantly-named things.  That could demotivate enough people
> that version 2 never appears, which would be worse than a mere delay.
>
> There's attention and there's attention.  Let's get good attention for
> the drafting process, rather than bad attention for
> publishing a buggy licence.

As you've just pointed out, one person's flaw may be another's  
features. Even to write about it in terms of "flaws" and "features" in  
the above way masks the debate as "_how_ should the licence say X" (a  
matter for technical legal drafting) when it is actually "_what_  
should the licence say" (a matter of perspective). There is no  
Platonic ideal copyleft data license.

There is a very distinct difference between what I see as a genuine  
flaw and this other concept of "flaws":

-- producing a licence that isn't all things to all people (who would  
then cast disagreeable provisions as flaws); versus 

-- the licence failing to do something intended or doing something  
unintended as a matter of legal drafting (this would be a genuine flaw  
and produce a "buggy licence").

In this sense, I very much agree that the aim is to produce (and get  
good attention for) a licence free of (technical legal) flaws.

>
> Who has been invited so far?  What's the process?  I'm not clear on
> either of those - the only thing I know is a comments deadline of 20
> March and a launch deadline of All Fools' Day, which seems foolish
> indeed.


Very witty but factually incorrect line about April Fools day: Open  
Data Commons hopes to launch at OKCon on the 28th of March:
<http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/>

As to process on inviting, please feel free to start adding to the  
wiki and pitch in or just invite people to comment yourself.  Start  
inviting people to comment, as Andrea has kindly done with Red Hat  
Legal.

>  I've no idea how one is going to reconcile comments in 8-10
> days, especially given that the co-ment site still isn't accessible.

Could you explain your comment on co-ment please?  I see comments up  
on it and it appears to be working. I also see that Rufus has added a  
page to the wiki for other comments -- I hope this addresses whatever  
issue you were having.

<http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/>

> The opendatacommons.org site is powered by the usually-accessible and
> friendly WordPress but we're not harnessing it to gather comments,
> which seems odd too.

It's not odd -- our experience with using it to gather comments on  
previous versions, as well as time to code and keeping everything  
simple lead Rufus and I to not put up a WordPress page of the full  
text for commenting.  We used co-ment which allows for specific  
comments on specific sections.
>
> So,
> 1. why is it better to publish a buggy first draft than wait?

See above for commentary on "buggy" here.

> 2. who has been invited to pay attention here so far?

Please get involved and invite any groups you may feel are  
appropriate. There are no rules to sending emails out to lists that  
you are on to ask for commentary.

> 3. what's the 8-10 days drafting/consolidation/compromise process?

The process at the moment is me trying to go through the comments to  
pull it all together.

Thanks

~Jordan


>
> Thanks,
> -- 
> MJ Ray (slef)
> Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small
> worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
> (Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237

____
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>