andrzej zaborowski writes:
> On 23 March 2011 11:37, Thomas Davie <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I'm not sure this is the lie though. The lie would be "zomg, not many
> > users are accepting the ODbL"
>
> I don't think that would be a lie. "Much" or "little" are of course
> fuzzy but I think here you have to use a sort of a logarithmic scale
> and I hope the license change working group is going to use that scale
> when/if they're deciding whether the moment is right to remove data
> from the editable database.
Y'know, I'm not understanding something. People whinge about CC-By-SA
not being free enough, and that OSM should be public domain. The
proper response to them (which I think most people agree with) is: if
you don't like the license, fork the project.
So why aren't the ODbL folks being told the same thing? You want a
different license? Hey, great, no problem, go ahead, create a fork of
OSM. But don't expect us to follow you.
Here's what I say to everyone who wants to change the project's
license:
FORK OFF!
--
--my blog is at http://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
