On 19/02/2008, Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > I am unhappy about the much-iterated claim that we would lose a lot > of data if we were to go PD (or CC0, or a similar non-virulent > license). > > Quite honestly, I think this claim is bordering on what you call > "FUD" - fear, uncertainty, and disinformation. >
It is possible that there has been more written about data loss on license change than any other aspect, but that doesn't mean its being used as the argument for one license over another. The issue was quite simple. We need to have a license that better protects the OSM data and clarifies how the data can be used so that the project can effectively deliver what it set out to deliver. The current proposal was and is considered to be the closest to the existing license while giving these needed improvements so it was the logical choice. OSM never started out as a PD project so why would we think that it would be better to recommend it go PD now? Perhaps there is room for a mechanism that puts data into the PD if contributers wish to make their data PD but I don't see why we would want to reinvent the present OSM project as PD. Cheers Andy -- Andy Robinson _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk