On 4 Mar 2009, at 06:49, LeedsTracker wrote: > 2009/3/4 Iván Sánchez Ortega <[email protected]>: >> On the other hand, I'm absolutely sure that the ODbL will fail and be >> exploited. The same way that the GPL2 was exploited by TiVo. I'm >> absolutely >> sure the ODbL will not address problems in different jurisdictions >> just the >> same way the first version of the CC licenses didn't. We now have >> GPL3 and CC >> 3.0, and at some point we'll have ODbL2 and ODbL3 and whatnot. >> >> So, what's the big deal about the ODbL not addressing every single >> issue on >> its first incarnation? > > I think this is spot on. Some posters seem to want the new license to > be exactly right, impervious and unassailable, at the first version. > > I'm not saying "anything goes", and I understand the impulse toward > perfectionism and thinking round every last logical chink in the > armour. > > But other licenses are revised and improved over the years - they'll > never settle at a definitive, final version, not least because law and > case law evolves too. > > It feels like applying for a job - you keep tweaking the wording of > your application, or rewriting whole paragraphs, but the time must > come when you decide it's "good enough", and put it in the post. > > The next application can be different, improved, but v1 often really > is good enough.
Yes to both you and Ivan. This is a so-called 'good, better, best' approach where we take a step in the right direction not a giant leap to Utopia. It's clear CCBYSA doesn't work, it's clear ODbL is a step. It's not perfect, but it's a fantastic first step. Best Steve _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
