Hi, > Right, but it can't be good for the motivation for said person > to be railroaded into releasing his work as PD by the OSM project. > I am such a person. While I might accept to release my work to the > PD, I would certainly not be happy about it. I find it quite > likely that this would have a negative aspect on my future > contributions.
But are my negative feelings about the share-alike aspect any less important than yours? Share-alike advocates have more clout legally because a share-alike project can gobble up PD contributions but not vice versa, and, as some will say, the PD contributor is "asking for it" by making his work PD. But still I am personally unhappy about my work being used to usher us into a tit-for-tat world where nobody really gives something away, and everybody expects something in return. I don't like that. It has a negative effect on my contributions. And now? > > 3. Any loss, be that from (1) or (2), is mediated by the fact that we > > don't have to *delete* that data; we can keep it in a separate [...] > I have a hard time imagining how this data stays useful. You use the > words 'dead end' above yourself. Who would invest any amount of > time in trying to actually do something with that database if it > is guaranteed not be updated? No I wouldn't. What I wanted to say is: Say I want a map of South London but the South London main contributor has not made the license switch. I will take the data from the current project and merge it with the out-of-date stuff that was CC-BY-SA licensed, and get a nice map, voila. The map will of course be CC-BY-SA but that doesn't hurt, at least I have got nice map of South London, so I am not worse off than before the switch. For me, as a user, the South London data is not lost. > And in the interest of NPOV I think you should also take into account > the AND data. It is a substantial contribution by a single party > with important commercial interests in keeping map data out of PD. Is that just speculation on your part, or do you have first-hand information from AND about that? My current information is that nobody has ever tried to convince AND to release their data PD, so how can we know? While we're speculating: I'm not even sure if AND would support a switch to another share-alike license. Is it not possible that they meanwhile had second thoughts about the usefulness of the whole deal with us, and would use such a license change as a convenient opt-out possibility? For the AND argument to be NPOV, we would have to have a solid statement from AND that (a) they wouldn't support PD and (b) they would support ODC. If any of these two, or both of them, are missing, then AND cannot be used as an argument in the discussion. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00.09' E008°23.33' _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
