Hi, Simon Ward wrote: >> Not: You don't give us your data, fine, then we create a complex legal >> licensing framework that will ultimately get you bogged down … > > That’s enough, really. As unserious as Richard can be this is just > trolling. If you have a problem with the share-alike, you’re doing > something wrong, you’re bogging yourself down.
Richard has already pointed out that those were my words, not his. And it is not unserious, it is exactly what numerous people on this list have said out loud: The see a certain potential in OSM's share-alike concept to "free up" other data. I'm all for free data, free software, people giving away stuff, encouraging creativity, not bunkering their assets and so on. What I don't like about share-alike is the small-minded attempt to codify this giving away into something legally binding. To me, this is deeply based in a negativist, paranoid world view where everyone is out to cheat you. Which *may* be actually true but I choose to live my life on the assumption that most people are good, which makes for an altogether happier existence, or at least it worked for me so far. If I give you a gift, there's a certain social/moral obligation for you to give me a gift too, at the next comparable opportunity. You can choose not to and you won't be sued, maybe you have good reasons, whatever. That's the way I like to do it with my work: I give it to others as a gift; no strings attached, you don't have to give something back but if you use a lot of free stuff then, unless your morals are completely fucked, you will become part of that culture and give things away as well. (There will always be some who take and don't give, but then there will also be those who give and don't take so who cares. OSM got TIGER for free, encompassing about 15 times the volume of data amassed by the community so far at the time.) What share-alike advocates do is they give away something that looks like a gift and they keep droning on about how this is all free and cool and a culture of freedom and so on, but before you open the parcel you have to sign a contract that says you have to give something back or be sued. (I say this to keep the gift analogy; I know that share-alike only forces you to give back what you do with the gift, not something else, but it doesn't make a difference for my point.) In a world of good people, you don't need share-alike. You only need it once you subscribe to the "they'll cheat you where they can" world view. Maybe I'm just not old and grumpy enough for that yet. That being said, "for the avoidance of doubt", I do support the ODbL/FIL combo; if we manage to iron out some of the issues then we are likely to have something better than we have now. But that doesn't change my perception that share-alike advocates are a bunch of worrywarts. 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/listinfo/legal-talk
