Hi,
M?rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
do we really want to require the 38th party down the line to still
attribute OSM no matter how diluted the OSM content has become?
yes. Why should it have become diluted?
The very nature of a produced work is to dilute OSM content because
otherwise it would
Frederik Ramm wrote:
TimSC wrote:
/ What is the point in paragraph 4.3, if it can be easily side stepped?
/
We have a well working culture of attribution in science, where you
usually quote the source you took something from, but not the source
behind the source behind the source.
TimSC wrote:
I am beginning to conclude the ODbL is a bloated, confusing mistake.
We would be better serviced in our project goals by a simpler
license i.e. a public domain-like license.
Public domain is unequivocally simpler. For many of us it is also the
right thing to do - see the
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
But in five years, we have never been able to obtain clear agreement
for this.
I assume this is based on gatherings of OSM members, mailing list
discussions, IRC, etc. But I have never been directly asked by OSMF what
the future license should be. I suspect that the
Hi,
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 19:43, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I am not bothered about individual contributions because everyone who
contributes *knows* what OSM is like and that he cannot expect to get
personal attribution. If someone however has
2010/4/19 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org:
do we really want to require the 38th party down the line to still
attribute OSM no matter how diluted the OSM content has become?
yes. Why should it have become diluted? If you give this up, you do
almost the same then releasing PD, and that's
