On 09/01/2010 10:14 AM, John Smith wrote:
On 1 September 2010 19:07, Rob Myers<r...@robmyers.org> wrote:
If you don't want the effects of a PD OSM for geodata, ODbL is a better way
of ensuring this than BY-SA
"The devil you know is better than the devil you don't"
"The devil is in the details."
At this stage I have every reason to believe the CT and now possible
the ODBL is a really bad deal and neither should be accepted as being
honest, moral or for the benefit of the project.
You may believe that the CTs and ODbL are flawed. People have made
suggestions for improvements to the CTs here, and I've seen suggestions
for improvements to the ODbL elsewhere that I happen to agree with.
You may believe they are morally wrong. I don't, although I understand
people's concerns about the responsibility they place on OSMF.
But going from these reasonable objections to accusing the actions of
the part of the community that you don't agree with of being dishonest,
immoral and detrimental is too much of a rhetorical leap.
That's a serious allegation and one not borne out by the facts.
If you believe that then you haven't been paying attention very much.
*Despite* paying attention I haven't seen anything that substantiates
your claim of "dirty tricks" on the part of the people you don't agree with.
- Rob.
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
