2010/7/19 Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org>: > Hi, > > Peteris Krisjanis wrote: >> >> I still haven't heard from SteveC or others from OSMF official answer >> wouldn't adding SA clause to section 3 in CT help situation a little - >> at least it would give contributors a promise that if there another >> license change is needed, license still will be SA (in a spirit of >> ODBL). > > -1 > > I have heard people complain about many things but not about that section > not enforcing SA for eternity. I don't think it would help the situation in > anyway; it would only further alienate those who don't like SA. What's on > the table right now is a delicate balance between different interests. > Trying to take something away now will upset the balance. > > And honestly, if at any future time two thirds of active OSM contributors > want to change to a non-SA license, why should we keep them from it? In one > or two years, "two thirds of active contributors" will be a greater number > of people than all of us today. Who are we to tell them what to do? We're > the minority ;)
That would indicate that PD lovin, SA hatin guys will try to "stuffin committee" method to push OSM in "right direction"? :) Harsh joke of course, but I really fail to see how after two very cut and clear SA licenses like CC-BY-SA and ODBL OSM suddenly will adapt non-SA license (in fact we have very short list for it here, because most data licenses are SA). And if I compare theoretical case in future with non-SA crowd, who suddenly got majority, and everyone wants PD (which practically non-SA means) with practical benefits with NOT loosing OSM data when doing conversation from CC to ODBL, I guess I have quite clear winner. Even more - why do you need such terms when you have ODBL, which have very painfully long history of creation? What is practical goal here? We will change license for OSM data every 5 years now? "It would only further alienate those who don't like SA." Is there any actual mapper who strictly don't like SA? So far I have only heard it from business people. And so far CC-by-SA and ODBL *both* are SA licenses and there is no indicator that it will change any other way soon. So it is already SA, why we can't clarify that next license (IF there ever be one) will be SA too? It won't change. In fact, all CT/CA situation is very strange - I really fail to see why we need them. More I listen, more I doubt their benefits for OSM as project and society. Let's adapt ODBL, change to it and be done. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
