> But personally, I *do* have a principled objection to share-alike. I > think it is the choice of the petty-minded, of people who can't let > go, who praise themselves as giving something away when in fact > they're just laying out a bait; people who really want to control and > enforce and sue and compel; people who would not hesitate one second > to employ DRM and stuff if it could be used to further their goals.
The problem with this view is that it has no correspondence with reality. Or, at least, it _could_ be that all these people who say "I support copyleft" but also say "DRM is evil" are lying to you and part of a large global conspiracy to secretly keep PD geodata from the world for their own evil ends, but if you are that paranoid, I really can't help you. Denying that your opponents hold the views they hold is not normally a good way to engage in debate. "Well, I think X and Y" "No, you don't!" ... Also, I would take issue with your loaded language: "bait" implies trap implies hidden, but there's nothing hidden about the licensing terms of OSM. You can choose to use the data and follow them, or not. "control and enforce and sue and compel" - the law of the land currently controls and enforces and compels me to drive on the correct side of the road, to pay for goods instead of stealing them, and so on. Not all enforcement and compelling is automatically wrong. "people who can't let go" - if you go into a shop and take something off the shelf and walk out with it, and the security guard stops you, do you accuse him of being "someone who can't let go"? The difference here is that some OSM participants want to trade, and you want to give away. Neither is ethically superior or inferior. Gerv _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
