On 20 July 2010 18:50, Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> wrote: > The idea is to try and lose the smallest number of people in the process > while doing what is necessary. This requires that everyone is paid respect. > Telling people that they are stupid and their ideas crap is not a good way > to move forward.
I don't recall saying anyone was stupid, in fact I've tried to refrain from bothering with the personal attacks, perhaps you are confusing me with SteveC, that is unless someone is spoofing his email address, but I'll leave that as an exercise for another day. > Obviously, we'd lose the smallest number of people if we'd just abandon > license change and continue with CC-BY-SA; however I am firmly with the LWG > on that this endangers the project's success in several ways and should not > be attempted. On one hand you are avidly promoting things should be allowed to go to PD, on the other hand you keep saying CC-by-SA isn't good enough and frankly I can't see this logic, either you want PD and in which case CC-by-SA may be for all intents and purposes offer just that, or you want protection for the database, please take one stance and stop flip flopping, you aren't doing yourself or anyone else any favours... > I realize that there are others who believe that the lawyers advising OSMF > are wrong, and that CC-BY-SA could indeed be used further. I have doubts I didn't say they were wrong, I just question if the benefits really do outweigh the drawbacks. > Australia), and also how to handle attribution. These things are currently > broken with CC-BY-SA and if someone wants to retain that license he should > demonstrate how they can be fixed. Why do you keep confusing ODBL with arguments against an ambiguous CT? _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
