On 08/30/2010 11:44 AM, John Smith wrote:
On 30 August 2010 20:40, Rob Myers<[email protected]> wrote:
I would never claim that switching from the GPL to BSD was minor. Or, in the
majority of cases, wise. But I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.
You are trying to claim that open ended relicensing is a good thing,
but at the same time you think trying to relicense a major project
like linux from GPL to BSD would be unwise, but that's effectively
what is being attempted here with the new CTs...
That isn't a valid comparison. The ODbL is not a BSD-style licence.
If you could explain this to Linus Torvalds I'd be most grateful.
What's so hard to understand, software patents weren't an issue when
the GPL v2 was published, but were later on which is why they
Or DRM. Or P2P distribution. Or, by the letter of GPL 2, *internet*
distribution. Or non-US law. Or...
attempted to address the issue, just like cc-by-sa v2 doesn't seem to
cover database rights, but cc-by-sa v3 does...
Wrong and wrong. A couple of the EU 2.0 licences covered DB right. 3.0
doesn't (it just mentions DB copyright in order to make clear that it
doesn't cover DB right) .
- Rob.
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
