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

Mon Mar 9 17:18:46 UTC 2009

On 9 Mar 2009, at 16:08, Andrea Musuruane wrote:

> 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.

Hi Andrea -- see my earlier post in this thread on defining "good" and  
"buggy".

> 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.

When you say "contributors" and discuss them re-joining later, I'm  
assuming you mean in reference to Open Street Map?  If so, then that  
is a discussion for OSM Talk or Legal Talk.
>
> I suggest to do press releases to relevant open source sites and
> communities to gain a broader audience for the license discussion.

I'm not sure what a press release ads other than work for us.  Pinging  
through an email, as you've done to Red Hat Legal, sounds like the  
best plan to me.  If you'd like to draft a press release or a short  
template email to notify people, then please feel free to jump in and  
do so.  Also, feel free to create a list on the wiki of people who  
should be notified and start ticking them off.

Thanks again.

~Jordan

>
> Just my 2c.
>
> Bye,
>
> Andrea.

____
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>