-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 14/07/14 06:26 PM, Alex Barth wrote: > > Taking a step back here. What do we want? From conversations > around dropping share alike my impression was that there was a > consensus around unlocking geocoding - even among share-alike > advocates. > > Just like how CC-BY-SA created a grey area around the SA > implications for the rendered map which wasn't good for OSM,
Which grey area was that? > ODbL does the same with permanent geocoding. To make OSM viable for > geocoding we can't have its ODbL infecting the datasets it's used > on. Contrary to Microsoft's lovely old FUD, copyleft isn't infectious: it's heritable. ;-) The ODbL represents a major shift away from full-stack copyleft in order to address precisely the concerns that are being raised yet again here. I suspect this is a classic example of a good compromise being something that displeases everyone equally. Luis mentioned that there's case law for the concept of "substantial". There's no mention of this on the current Wiki page. I think it would be productive to seek that out next. - - Rob. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTxHL7AAoJECciMUAZd2dZ31UIAK7vPZ5B5j9NVkbgVwYvA8h8 mYPt2l1+7/+sqYMpa8TLYubYaURWa096MLk+FQUcnteUWLy0mKDbVODydhU0WBhL t1sUehJjI0cHYZqE4TG54u8x1O/ADUGnCSJJwsTbuW3njXC2cMcRzkQf680zpBon pJkpoUWkwDE2M8dbbx9vmdoJMR3w847UD57bTINGy6azS/YyUFAL3FhqpyHa2gbZ ExowM2LadTEhQgFFAk5whCuOdzU3HYObfkS6YCKgzoDRMaZmMVCTecxbD4QXtF/C m2XlyLo/h9D/MrhxpPSAsWWHUdHWjWP2S7HqkSmiCQ7/zy17XdyWvug7SLKReTw= =/Vhb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
