Mike N writes:
> Even a proper reversion script will cause much collateral damage for
> the cases I'm aware of.
The whole point behind having a license is to be able to sue people
who violate it. We have a license which allows us to do that now. Is
anybody suing the copyright infringers?
No, they are not. They're not even sending demand letters. Has anybody
even BOTHERED to register their copyright (a low-cost and essential
first step for protecting your copyright)? Not that I know of.
Unless somebody has a theory under which there will be more mappers
suing more users, the only rational conclusion can be that the license
change will hurt OSM, and not help it at all. Thus, the only question
that people should be pondering is:
How much damage to the map
are people willing to accept
in exchange for
no benefit at all?
People speak of consensus, but there is no consensus, because there
are a number of people who object to the license change (and this is
no secret to anyone). So, can we please stop talking about consensus,
and start talking about ramming the license change down the throats of
people who love the map and aren't willing to walk away from it?
Because clearly, the people who don't care about how badly the map
will be damaged without their contributions, have already left.
Changing the license is butt-stupid. Always has been, always will be.
It's never too late to give up on a butt-stupid idea, and it's never
early enough.
--
--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
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
