Rob, I could only follow your line of argument if OSM was a project that is trying to compete in the same market as a potential commercial player that is marketing an OSM + proprietary data mix. As OSM isn't, it has a bigger benefit from allowing liberal use.
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 12:26 PM, Rob Myers <r...@robmyers.org> wrote: > On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 11:51:18 -0500, Alex Barth wrote: > >> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Rob Myers wrote: >> >> >> despite the economic irrationality of this >>> >> >> It _is_ economically rational to contribute to OSM even if there >> wasn't a share alike license. >> > > It's economically rational to keep costs down until VC funding is > available. > > > This is the point of the matter and where we miss each other. >> >> It's economically more than rational to contribute to a >> non-share-alike OSM (or other open source/data projects). On the flip >> side share-alike introduces complexities that clearly disincentivize >> contributing. >> > > But as I stated, contributing is not the point. > > Using what is contributed is. > > Corporate moral panics don't change this. > > > - Rob. > > > ______________________________**_________________ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/legal-talk<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk> >
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
