On Dec 6, 2009, at 2:03 AM, 80n wrote: > On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 6:00 AM, Matt Amos <zerebub...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:37 AM, Stefan de Konink <ste...@konink.de> wrote: > > Matt Amos schreef: > >> we're talking about moving to another > >> license with very similar requirements, but a different > >> implementation, and that's not "open" and "free" anymore? it would > >> really help me if i could understand your position. > > > > Its honestly terribly simple. We get into a discussion over moving from > > a widely used `GPL2.0' like license that works for everyone, and best of > > all is compatible with everyone. > > it does neither of the above. imagine a situation in which source code > were considered not to generate copyrights. any project licensed under > "GPL2.0" would lose protection. this is the situation we're in: > copyright very probably doesn't apply to our database, yet the license > we're using is based entirely on copyright. > > also, CC BY-SA isn't compatible with everyone. it's compatible with > PD, attribution-only and itself. the exact same is true of ODbL. > > > Some folks here think that BSD style should be our target. > > indeed. but wouldn't it be better to find a license which works first, > then discuss what an even better license might be? > > > Now the stearing committee thinks that for better protection we should > > go for OSI-APPROVED-LICENSE-X; that nobody is compatible with yet and > > worse. If we were Linux, we would have to remove our cool exotic network > > card drivers just to facilitate this move. And worst of all, all the > > nice vendors we were just talking with that were moved to going open are > > now bound to a contract... that sounds so... formal? > > well, such is the nature of legal documents :-( > > although, maybe it's familiarity talking, but i find ODbL less formal > and easier to read than CC BY-SA's legal code. > > > Until anyone can guarantee that every bit of CC-BY-SA could be used > > without problems in the new framework; I'm a skeptic. And basically > > think about the deletionism in Wikipedia. Or wasting capital in real life. > > i'm afraid i can't dispel your skepticism, then. it's possible we > could just keep all the old CC BY-SA data, since the license governing > it doesn't work, but i think this would be too radical a step for the > OSMF board ;-) > > It's shocking that you could even have such a thought. Nevermind the smiley. > > You've spent many many hours studying the licensing issues and claim to have > a deep understanding of the issues. If CC BY-SA is as broken as you claim it > is then Google, Navteq, Teleatlas and many others would all have helped > themselves to our data by now.
No, because there is social pressure too. > You can't continue to claim that CC BY-SA is broken without some evidence of > our data being abused. Put up or shut up, please. Absence of evidence... Yours &c. Steve _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk