On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 1:25 PM, John Smith <deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 17 April 2011 15:17, Eugene Alvin Villar <sea...@gmail.com> wrote: >> The point still stands. Granting rights to a central body (but not >> your copyright--you still retain that) is not unheard of in open >> communities. > > They also aren't generally the most popular, just like BSD lags behind > Linux, which could be due to the strong sharing clauses of the > license.
The virality (or share-alikeness) of a license is orthogonal to whether contributors assign rights or not to a central body. > The FSF have 20 years of not only expressing strong opinions about > moral aspects of licensing, but they have stuck to their guns, > something that the OSM-F hasn't done, SteveC states at various times > in the past he will only support share a like licenses, yet the ODBL > and CT both weaken this stance considerably. On the share-alike, I disagree, but this is a personal preference. I like the share-alike aspects of ODbL over CC-BY-SA for OSM data. You think ODbL weakens it, but I like it because you have access to the derivative data and not just the final product. On sticking to ones guns, this could be a plus (being consistent) or a negative (being stubborn). Same with the converse: being flexible vs. being wishy-washy. Comparing the FSF to OSMF in this way without considering the context is not very persuasive. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk