Rob, thank you, your answers to my barrage of questions were most helpful, and have showed me that I’m not completely off course in my thinking.
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 02:18:29PM +0000, Rob Myers wrote: > >Why leave it undefined? > > To allow it to be defined by the community. Which I suppose means > that if the community could always say "It's the OKD, stupid!". :-) Ok, well I guess I’m trying to say “it’s the OKD, stupid!” :) > To avoid *another* dependency on another project. As far as I am aware the text is licensed under CC by-sa, and should OKFN change course, or jump ship, OSM could always fork the definition. In general, I’m not averse to depending on organisations such as OKFN, the FSF, OSI, and Debian to host and maintain definitions. It’s very nice to be able to just point at them and just say “that’s how we define it” and move on, concentrating on our own projects real aims. > To avoid rules lawyering. I've had people tell me that the GPL and > AGPL opposing DRM and SaaS makes them non-free because tdoing so is > "discrimination against a field of endeavo(u)r". I’ve had people similarly tell me that, despite claiming they would not add further restrictions to future licences, the FSF did just that with GPL v3 because it restricts how software producers can package and distribute their products. Forget about the freedoms of end users! > To avoid *another* document that will be interminably criticised by > self-identified time-wasters. Meh, they can waste their time. This is just one of those things where I would say we just pick a definition then move on. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
