Richard Fairhurst <rich...@...> writes: >>It's curious that two of the strongest defences of 'strong share-alike' come >>from yourself and Richard F. - but both of you prefer public domain. I, >>too, would prefer public domain over the ODbL. What's going on?
>Basically, OSM has several outspoken people who won't countenance a >permissive licence (e.g. Etienne and Steve). If you'd like to try and >convince them of the error of their ways you're a braver man than I am. 80n is also an outspoken person who won't countenance ODbL or the proposed contributor terms - so I don't think he weighs on the side favouring ODbL rather than PD. When I spoke with him I think his main concern was attribution: 80n, is that correct? So a CC-BY licence might be acceptable. Would you as a 'public domain' proponent accept attribution-only as good enough? You're right, though, that there are others within the project who don't think a permissive licence is the right choice. But it seems to have never been given a fair shake - it was simply assumed right from the outset that share-alike is the 'consensus', and then that was used to bring in a whole lot of legalese to close off possible loopholes, giving ODbL as the unchallengeable end result which must now be pushed through at all costs. -- Ed Avis <e...@waniasset.com> _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
