On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:53 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote: > There's only one undeniable fact in this whole affair. Exactly 100% of all > contributors have signed up to CC-BY-SA and have indicated that they are > willing to contribute their data under that license.
Given that that has been the only option, that's hardly surprising. Nobody was ever given the option to contribute under a different license. Using this to bolster your position is a bit disingenuous, especially since the last 30,000 people have also agreed to ODbL without any mass hysteria. > That is a clear mandate for CC-BY-SA. Where's the mandate for ODbL? After > more than two years of license-twiddling they still don't have a clue how > much support there is. "They" do, both amongst Foundation members and by a (small) survey of contributors. Now we'll find out what the full contributor body has to say, but you're pretty outspoken in trying to ensure this stage has a time limit - effectively ensuring that some people will be excluded. I expect you'd be quite happy to see as many people as possible failing to meet whatever deadline you wish to see imposed on the relicensing, since that works in your favour too. After reading your arguments on the wiki and all these messages it's pretty clear you want to keep the CC-BY-SA license, ignore the fundamental problems with it, and have little interest in any other option. And if we gave you a veto, you'd use it, regardless of how many people want ODbL. Cheers, Andy _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
