But isn't the bit that's causing the bulk of the discussion a limited part of the CTs, not ODbL per se?
It strikes me as two issues - changing to ODbL and, separately, the inclusion of a clause in the CTs allowing a future unspecified relicensing by the OSMF. The two aren't, necessarily, interlinked. I haven't heard any fundamental objection to moving to ODbL, but lots of objections to the CTs. Unfortunately the two seem to be being treated as one. Kevin ------Original Message------ From: Richard Fairhurst Sender: legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org To: t...@openstreetmap.org Cc: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org ReplyTo: Licensing and other legal discussions. Sent: 16 Nov 2010 10:45 Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk] New site about the license change [follow-ups to legal-talk, where this thread really should have started] Kevin Peat wrote: > Personally I don't care if the current license is weak as most > organisations will respect its spirit and if a few don't who cares, > it doesn't devalue our efforts one cent. I can't see how changing > to an unproven license can possibly be worth fragmenting the > project. There'll be some fragmentation whatever happens. I've no doubt that, as you suggest, some people will leave if OSM moves to ODbL. Conversely, if OSM resolved to stick with CC-BY-SA then I'd leave as would several others. There is no "let's just carry on as at present" option. Richard _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk