Simon Poole writes: > It is clearly the easier, pragmatic and sensible thing to do to simply > accept the CTs.
It is clearly the easier, pragmatic,[1] and sensible thing to simply accept public domain contributions to OSM. We've accepted them in the past (and relicensed under CC-By-SA). What is wrong with accepting them in the future and relicensing under the ODbL? We have a two groups of people who are being ninnies here: the people who refuse to sign the CT, and the people who insist that they sign the CT. The question is: who has a rational course of action, and cui bono? OSM benefits by keeping their contributions because it decreases the disruption of removing them. The OSMF doesn't benefit by deleting their contributions, because it is at no more risk by accepting their bald assertion about PD versus CT. Either way, if they're lying or wrong, the OSMF needs to immediately delete their contributions, and make a good-faith effort to stop redistribution. The project has more to gain and nothing to lose by accepting PD contributions. Thus, the OSMF ninnies are the ones who should change their minds. [1] New York Times style guide puts a comma here. -- --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
