On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 4:23 PM, Grant Slater <[email protected]> wrote: > On 28 October 2010 14:59, Mike Dupont <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I don't have an agenda, but I am a believer in share-alike. >> > > ODbL _is_ a data share-alike license. > See point 2 of requirements: > http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/summary/
It is not a SA license as I understand it, it is a contract. My points about this new contract are these : 1. who is going to host my data in the future? archive.org does not support any strange contracts, it supports PD and cc. Why should I be forced to use PD? I am not putting all this effort into collecting this data to give it away, sorry. I would like to have changes shared back, that is pretty simple, no? 2. how can I explain a new license to someone if I don't understand it myself? How can I convince people to use something I don't understand? 3. why is the new license incompatible, and what will happen to future data under the cc? and finally, the point that really bothers me is this : why do I feel that people are using pressure to change this license? I dont like the way this is being done and I don't think that it makes sense. I would love to understand it all much better and to be convinced that it its the right thing to do, but at this point this new license is totally alien to me. I have the feeling that we will be in a bad position after this relicensing, especially if you break compatibility with all know licenses. thanks, mike _______________________________________________ Imports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
