Hi, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
What I don't like is that CT section 3 practically strips all this good work away, with having vague definition of "new and open license".
"Free and open". And personally, I think that's just about ok - OSM is about creating a free map of the world, not a share-alike map of the world. If any any future time OSM thinks that a non-share-alike license would be best - why should we, today, try to dictate our wish to them?
I don't share your sentiment that providing a license change path for the future actually throws away any good work. If the new license works well for everybody, there will be no reason to change it, and the good work will be with us forever.
If this can be clarified with SA and Attribution clauses, then everything is very very ok.
Not for me; I think it is beyond our mandate add this restriction. It is also far from "clarifying", indeed it adds more problems. If you look at CC-BY-SA vs. ODbL, you see that while both are essentially share-alike, the SA provision extends to slightly different things with ODbL than with CC-BY-SA. Some things are share-alike under CC-BY-SA but not under ODbL, and vice versa. The same could happen with any future license; it might still be "essentially" a share-alike license but it might free some things from the share-alike requirement, or add others to it. If the CT now demanded the new license be "share-alike", who would have the power to decide whether it is "share-alike enough"?
Bye Frederik _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
