Hi,
John Smith wrote:
There is a difference between scaring them away and giving them all
the pertinent facts that may become relevant.
"If you drink this bottle of soda pop, you increase your risk of
permanent tooth damage."
In this case they may
assume that they will always be given indirect attribution when in
fact this may not be the case in future.
As I said, most aren't even interested in today's attribution, and much
less in what might or might not be in the future. Of course if someone
*is* interested they'll get the whole run-down from CC-BY-SA over ODbL
and including our prerogative to change to any other free+open license
in the future.
In many cases (at least in those where you deal with someone who
actually has the power to sign something off) it boils down to whether
you can get them to like the project and its participants. It is more
about what we do and what kind of people we are, about our spirit than
some nitty-gritty license paragraphs.
I agree that this may be different if you're dealing with a bueraucracy
on a national level where you don't try to get them to give the data to
you because they like you and your project, but instead you try to make
them release the data to the public under a certain and specific
license. That might be a different ball game which requires different
tactics.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
