On 5 August 2010 18:04, Heiko Jacobs <heiko.jac...@gmx.de> wrote: > I don't want youre private guesses. > I want to have official facts.
Unless someone sues another in court over this issues, you are only going to get guesses. > What's the problem to do this for the reasons of data loss, too? The reason for the data loss is as Frederik wrote, CC-by-SA isn't believed to be compatible with ODBL, and almost nothing except CC0 and PD data is compatible with the new contributor terms, so unless people give permission to relicense under ODBL their data would have to be excluded. Although the whole point of the license change is because people believe cc-by-sa isn't valid for GIS data so it's almost contradicting to exclude data that isn't protected by copyright... > You use absurd examples do draw off the attention from > well-founded, but unanwsered questions. Without actual court cases this is the best anyone can do, and it's for this reason some believe CC-by-SA is good enough because the absurd examples haven't come true. > A lot of things around the point of data loss are very absurd, indeed ... You essentially have 2 camps here, the pragmatists who think anything but minor data loss is unacceptable, and you have the idealists who think even if we loose a most of data people will just put new "freer" data back in and we'll be able to then license under the most freest license possible so there is no restrictions at all on anything ever again. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
