I guess I do understand that congenital/viral aspect of the license. What I am finding hard to understand is what does OSM get in return for this feature? I can see that the expectation is that users of OSM will need to share alike and hence enrich the data and its contributors. However, due to that very same congenital/viral feature wouldn't a large number of potential users simply choose to not "inherit" or be "infected" by OSM? In turn wouldn't this choice to not use OSM reduce the prospect of share alike infections/inheritance? On Oct 29, 2014 9:37 AM, "Rob Myers" <r...@robmyers.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 29/10/14 07:02 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > > actually this would remove the virality from the license, a feature > > that was chosen on purpose to be included. The basic idea of share > > alike licenses is to "infect" other stuff that gets in contact with > > the share-alike content/data to become share-alike itself. > > It's "congenital", not "viral". It propagates by inheritance, not > contagion. > > ;-) > > - - Rob. > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1 > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUUPtbAAoJECciMUAZd2dZ91cH/1jbALOpOXN2kjNmTI1WkpuO > nk4HYxHMkuuGhJTjQ9FYFAAhDMw89DJ7AUMCP6AdjPCxQzlysgiOCyE5I/398MJi > qo3QWDlaWoV7MMiUzZuICwzbH3+LJAqFx886LLr/GSaH0pLkI0FsS0jZ1oMg+yaC > g7vu44F0KG4EPXZlfeJNp5ameCQTl4FqTBH6aB8ru35+Tu4w2TMbbbFDS/+XQg1A > Wc7uhOzUUA8ktTqZFPdH9dlbHE5Y9an9y140K+MoBXYvId9UEaLhV6PeOA/kYOA7 > luYbUePtjX9EALbqtipslaAXVGQdfmtaJd159AHKEdRGX8wX4tOWCWSmxl6C2V4= > =ejQk > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk >
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
