On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Mike Dupont <[email protected] > wrote:
> 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. > > Hello. Please take this licensing discussion off the imports list. When the topic of conversation becomes imports-related again please feel free to bring it back to this list. Thanks, Ian
_______________________________________________ Imports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
