On Fri, 2011-03-25 at 00:11 -0400, Russ Nelson wrote: > 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.
The problem is, any fork under the existing licence can continue without problem. Any fork under the new licence, cannot use any data unless the user who contributed that data can/will give them 100% rights. Those against the ODbL can fork any time, and continue with the data under a CC licence without worrying about relicencing someone elses data. Those in favour of the ODbl have to ensure the data they hold can be relicenced. This doesnt allow for the fact of people who have simply clicked accept, without understanding that they might not have the rights to relicence data theyve contributed, so short of starting from scratch and explaining to every new user the exact conditions of their data contribution and use, the OSM data will never be 100% 'clean', but the struggle to go from 99% to 99.9% clean, will sadly reduce the quantity of data at the expense of the licence quality of it. David _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
