On 25 Oct 2008, at 11:56, Frederik Ramm wrote: > 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 is sort of the basis for the free market > 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. I think in Hogfather by Terry Pratchett there's a jingle played in a santa-like grotto for children titled "wouldn't it be nice if everyone was nice". > 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 just game theory see http://www.amazon.co.uk/Evolution-Co-Operation-Penguin-Press-Science/dp/0140124950/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224961441&sr=8-1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iterated_prisoner%27s_dilemma#The_iterated_prisoner.27s_dilemma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_Tat > 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.) Yes but we're the only people who have ever tried to improve it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons > 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.) Then don't use it, it's a free country. > In a world of good people, you don't need share-alike. In a world with unicorns I would be king. > 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. And you're an idealist... :-) Best Steve _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
