On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Andy Allan <gravityst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 10:24 AM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Andy Allan <gravityst...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Given that that has been the only option, that's hardly surprising. > > > > Everyone had two options: 1) agree to CC-BY-SA or 2) take your data to > some > > other project (plenty to choose from). > > > > Nobody forced you to contribute to OSM. You agreed to CC-BY-SA. > > Oh, this is ridiculous. Of course I've agreed to CC-BY-SA. The ODbL > didn't even exist when I joined OSM - and you know that fine and well > Etienne, you were there too when there was only 3 of us mapping in SW > London. So it's a crazy line of argument that you are following. > > Using the assertion that 30,000 people have agreed to ODbL already is the crazy line of argument. Everyone knows that new users are very trusting when signing up to an established project with a fine reputation. The sign up page doesn't even link to ODbL nor to the human readable summary. How many people do you think actually know what they are signing up for? In a truly open project there is no need to be so underhand. > But there's more to OSM than the license, and if the project wants to > change the license, and I think the new license is reasonable, then > I'm happy to change. I've contributed to wikipedia under different > licenses over the years too, you know. > > This line of discussion has turned from daft to pointless. > > Cheers, > Andy > > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk >
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
