On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 06:56:15PM +1000, James Livingston wrote: > On 25/08/2010, at 5:41 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > There is also a very practical reason against fixing anything, and > > *specifically* a share-alike requirement, in the CT, and that is that in > > order to make *clear* what you want you will have to write half a license > > into the CT. > > I completely agree - if you want to add a clause requiring that future > licenses be "share alike" you'll need to come up with a good definition of > what that means, and once you do you're probably made it impossible to > relicense. The whole point of the relicensing clause is that we don't know > what we'll need in the future.
The best way to avoid such problems with a future licensing clause is not to have such a clause at all, or stick to explicitly named licences. If share‐alike needs to be defined, then so does “free and open”, because many people have different ideas of what that means, and we haven’t referred to any standard definition. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
