Quoting Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Sounds like you're targetting individuals whom you do not trust to > make an informed choice.
I am targeting people who would remove the ability of others to make an informed choice. > I know that there are whole schools of philosophy reliant on the "we > know better what is good for the average man so we have to keep the > tempations away from him" but I don't subscribe to that. Nor do I. Do you believe that people should be prevented from forcing this philosophy on others? > You accuse Jochen of having an "ideological commitment to market > competition", but is your idea that the general population is too > stupid to decide for themselves whether they want to use the "free" > data or the "non-free" competition product any less ideological? My idea is not that people should be forbidden from choosing free or non-free products. High-quality proprietary maps clearly already exist and nothing is stopping people from starting their own company or government department to make even more proprietary maps. So I don't understand how OSM can stop people making or using non-free maps through its choice of licence. My idea is that OSM is not just another such offering. Its practical value is not that it is yet another shiny branded utility in the marketplace, its practical value is that it provides a resource that can be used wherever it is encountered. Copyleft ensures that this practical value is available for all, PD allows it to be restricted for others. To allow others to remove choice is not better than trying to ensure that others keep choice. - Rob. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
