On 20 Feb 2008, at 22:01, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > >> I might therefore conclude (and stop me if my logic is faulty) that >> the >> only reason for someone to propose Option 1 over Option 2 on the >> basis >> of "it won't work" is because they actually have a principled >> objection >> to the share-alike part of Option 2, and are using "it won't work" >> as an >> excuse. > > Well. Option 1 would be a honest PD. Option 2a would be a "well we > wanted something else and we got this" PD. Sounds like losing face to > me. > > (long time readers of legal-talk just stop here, the following is > well-known to you.) > > But personally, I *do* have a principled objection to share-alike. I > think it is the choice of the petty-minded, of people who can't let > go, who praise themselves as giving something away when in fact > they're just laying out a bait; people who really want to control and > enforce and sue and compel; people who would not hesitate one second > to employ DRM and stuff if it could be used to further their goals.
people who would kill kittens and scare old ladies in the street, people who play loud music late at night and rob banks... This is a bit extreme, supporting share-alike is not supporting terrorism. have fun, SteveC | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.asklater.com/steve/ _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
