User:Jkjk/whynotodbl
Česky
Zde několik důvodů, proč není opuštění stávající licence dobré:
1. Hlavnim duvodem, proc se ma opoustet stavajici CC licence je to, ze udajne neni vhodna pro databaze a v americkem pravu je nemusi chranit. Z hlediska ceskeho prava (podobne i z hlediska prav vetsiny zemi EU) ovsem zadny problem neexistuje, i databaze je chranena se stavajici licenci, tvurce mapy v CR tento "problem" nijak neovlivnuje.
2. CC je vysoce globalni licence, je prelozena do nekolika desitek jazyku a je portovana do 50 pravnich radu (vetsina Ameriky a Evropy, Cina, Indie, Japonsko). Tvurce mapy, zajemce o pouzivani ci poskytnuti dat si tak jednuduse muze vyhledat prislusnou portovanou (a tedy plne platnou) licenci. Oproti tomu ODbL existuje pouze v anglicke verzi prizpusobene americkemu a britskemu pravu. Uzivatele a tvurci mimo USA a VB (tedy i v CR) tak v pripade zmeny licence vubec nebudou tusit, nakolik je ODbL kompatibilni s mistnim pravem a tedy za jakych podminek prispivaji do mapy, za jakych podminek mohou data z mapy vyuzit nebo za jakych podminek maji data mape poskytnout.
3. Do OSM zatim prispelo pres 350 tis uzivatelu. Na uzemi Ceske republiky pak editovato pres 3000 uzivatelu, z toho pres 350 vlozilo alespon 1000 bodu. O zameru zmenit licenci rozhodlo pouhych 120 clenu nadace OMF. Nevim o tom, ze by nejaky uzivatel z Ceske republiky byl clenem teto nadace. Tedy vypada to na stare znamo o nas bez nas. Pro porovnani, kdyz se objevil zamer menit licenci wikipedie, o zmene licence mohl hlasovat kazdy aktivni uzivatel wikipedie a ve vysledku se hlasovani zucastnilo temer 18 tis prispivovatelu.
4. V tete souvislosti je take nutno pripomenout jedno obzvlaste vypacene ustanoveni ODbL - konkretne bod 4.4 odst. a) bod iii a odst. e). Ten umoznuje urceni kompatibilni licence, se kterou je mozne data vyuzit, pricemz toto urceni ma v rukou opet pouze nadace. Nekolik desitek clenu jejich tak muze napriklad urict licenci, ktera zvyhodnuje nejaky externi subjekt (napr. Microsoft, Google), pripadne jeste vice omezi prava prispivovatelu. Toto ustanoveni je take nocni murou pro kazdeho poskytovatele dat.
5. V posledni rade je treba pripomenout vynucovani zmeny licence. Prispivovatelum je zmena vykladana jako hotova vec. V "hlasovani" si mohou vybrat prechod na ODbL, PD nebo prestat prispivat. Jine moznosti (napriklad zachovani soucasne licence ci dvoji CC a ODbL licencovani) jsou zamerne vynechany. V prispivovatelych je vyvolavan dojem, ze v pripade neprijeti nove licence budou jejich pripevky brzy smazany.
In English
Here are some reasons, why leaving current license is bad:
1. Main reason for changing license are problems with application of cc on database mainly in US law. But from the view of Czech law (and most of EU countries laws) there is no problem and database is proteced even with cc. Czech osm creators are not influenced by that US "problem".
2. CC is almost global license, it is translated to tens of languages, but also ported to more than 50 law jurisdictions (almost whole Americas, Europe, China, India, Japan). OSM creator, user or data donor can easily found its ported (and thus fully valid) version. In contrast ODbL is available in english only and valid in US and UK. In case of licese change all creators, users and donors outside UK and US will not know, how ODbL is compatible with their national law and thus under what conditions they are contributing, can use its data or can donate data.
3. OSM has more than 350 thousands of contributors. The Czech republic area was edited by more than 3,000 contributors, more than 350 of them contributed with more than 1,000 nodes. License change was decided by only 120 members of OMF. I did not know any member of foundation from Czech Republic. Thus democratic deficit is very high. For comparsion, in a case of licese change of wikipedia, every acite contributor can vote. As result more than 18 thousands voted.
4. In this context one very problematic provision of ODbL must be noted. It is point 4.4 para a part iii and para e. In this provision decision, what license will be compatible with ODbL, is moved to OMF. Thus again a few of its members can for exapmle choose license favouring some external subject (for exapmle Microsoft of Google) or license more limiting rights of contributors. This provision is nightmare for all data donors.
5. Last but not least is the way, how license change is enforced. The license change is presented to contributors as fait accompli. They can choose only change to ODbl, PD or stop contributing. Other options (keep current license or CC ODbL double-licensing) are intentionally omitted. Contributors are feared that in case of rejection they must stop contributing immediately and their existing contribution will bee soon deleted.