On 15/03/2014, Kevin Peat <o...@k3v.eu> wrote: > On 15 March 2014 08:22:26 GMT, Michael Kugelmann <michaelk_...@gmx.de> > wrote: >>Am 14.03.2014 12:43, schrieb o...@k3v.eu: >>> IMHO, share alike is just like DRM on music >>What??? Come on, don't be foolish! DRM tries to prevent any reuse of >>date whereat Share Alike just requests to offer the data under the same >> >>conditions as you got them. This is a fundamental difference! > > Well my point is that using OSM should be a no-brainer and the complexity > added to the license by share alike means that it isn't for a lot of > potential users. I would prefer my contributions to be used as widely as > possible.
Licenses are complex. It's the fault of international laws intermingling, not the fault of the licence writer nor of the share-alike clause. As has been pointed out, share-alike also *enables* some use-cases that wouldn't be possible with PD, CC0, or CC-BY. It's a balancing act. > It really doesn't matter [to me] if a few people rip off the project if the > result is OSM becomes ubiquitous. I don't suppose Linus Torvalds cares that > a few Chinese companies rip off Linux when the open license means it is > everywhere. Linux is GPLv2, which is absolutely share-alike and similar to OSM in that respect. And the Linux community has been much more active in fighting licence violations. The comparision with Linux really proves the opposite of what you seem to think. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
