On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> wrote: > Anthony, > > you seem to be missing context. I have re-added the quote from Mike to > which I replied: > > On 11/26/10 16:53, Anthony wrote: >>>> >>>> If you have a license, then make it closed, dont leave any loopholes >>>> or blank check rules in there that involve trusting some unknown set >>>> of people that can change at any time. Make simple rules and I will be >>>> happy. > >>> How can we have the hubris to say "we know what's best >>> for OSM in 10 years"? > >> Preserving the right to opt out of future changes doesn't say that. >> On the contrary, it is an expression of uncertainty over the future. > > The above statement was about creating fixed licenses without any loopholes > - Mike said we should do it, I replied it was a bad idea. This was not about > opting out of future changes.
It's a bad idea to create fixed licenses without any loopholes? Unlikely, maybe, but then, that's why there's "or any later version". The contributor terms go far beyond the ability to merely fix loopholes, as can be seen by the very switch from CC-BY-SA to ODbL. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
