On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 1:16 AM, Russ Nelson <r...@cloudmade.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 15, 2009, at 8:33 PM, Simon Ward wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 08:26:14PM -0400, Russ Nelson wrote: > >> > >> On Mar 15, 2009, at 6:00 PM, Gervase Markham wrote: > >>> why are we bothering with switching OSM to 1.0 at all? > >>> Why not just wait for the 1.1 fixed version? > >> > >> 1) Because ODbL 1.0 is better than C-By-SA > > > > So far that is one thing that is subject to debate. > > You're changing the subject. Gerv was wondering why we would switch > to a license we know isn't perfect. The answer is : because it's > better. OBVIOUSLY if it's not better, we wouldn't switch to it. > > > >> 2) Because it's not clear that we'll understand ODbL any time soon > >> well enough to fix any problems. > > > > If we don’t understand it we shouldn’t use it. > > > We didn't understand the negative aspects of the CC-By-SA, but we used > *it*. Are you saying that OSM shouldn't have been licensed at all, > because at the time the licensing decision was made, people didn't > understand exactly how it would work? Are arguing that we should then make the same mistake twice? ODbL is more complex than CC-BY-SA in many way (copyright *and* database rights *and* contract law) and it is completely untested. Can you explain why you think the risks justify your haste? 80n
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
