Frederik Ramm wrote: > > Legal subtleties are best discussed on legal-talk. If you care to make > your suggestion there, I'd be willing to point out why it doesn't work ;) >
Fair enough Frederik, if it's a legal subtlety then I probably don't want to know! :) But I do feel slightly uncomfortable that my edits, which I've now agreed should be licensed under ODbL, can currently be used by fosm to build a CC-by-SA competitor project which aims to divide our community. 80n is correct when he said: 80n wrote: > > From here on in, OSM loses ground against fosm.org. The mass deletions in > OSM (if they ever happen) will put OSM further behind. > But only because fosm can currently stay in sync with OSM and still claim CC-by-SA on updates that are made under the new CTs by contributors that agree with the move to ODbL. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/License-CT-issues-Let-s-not-punish-the-world-s-disadvantaged-pls-tp6504931p6508098.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
