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

[Andrea Musuruane]

On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 11:35 AM, MJ Ray <mjr at phonecoop.coop> 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?
>
> 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.

I do agree, there is too little time to have a proper discussion about
the new licences.

I do think that it is better to have a good license later than a
not-so-good-or-buggy license before. A lot of contributors could
abandon if they are dissatisfied with the license and that is not a
good at all. It will be extremely complex to try to make them re-join
later.

I suggest to do press releases to relevant open source sites and
communities to gain a broader audience for the license discussion.

Just my 2c.

Bye,

Andrea.