On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 05:56:53PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: > I'm all for free data, free software, people giving away stuff, > encouraging creativity, not bunkering their assets and so on. What I > don't like about share-alike is the small-minded attempt to codify this > giving away into something legally binding.
I’d rather it need not be legally binding, just automatic. The problem is that the laws to restrict exist at all, not the philosophy behind keeping things free. > If I give you a gift, [blah blah] Please note that if I give you free software, you do not have to give me anything at all in return. You don’t even have to give me anything if you give it to someone else, you are simply obliged by the license that if you redistribute it (including derivatives), you redistribute enough for it to be useful for the next person to have the same freedoms you do. > have to sign a contract that says you have to give something back or be > sued. (I say this to keep the gift analogy; I know that share-alike only > forces you to give back what you do with the gift, not something else, > but it doesn't make a difference for my point.) Wrong, see above. In addition the GPL at least is explicitly not a contract, and I’m not sure making the data licence a contract is a good idea either, though I don’t have enough understanding to authoritatively say so, and neither the contacts or money to get the legal advice. I trust OSMF is doing their best to do that for me. 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
