Richard Fairhurst wrote: > I know it's not always easy but we're none of us great at communication, > we're none of us actually paid to think that carefully about what we write, > so it's all too easy to get wound up in a http://xkcd.com/386/ kind of way. > At which point Steve does something between amused and sarcastic, Frederik > does deadpan, I do flying off the handle, Etienne does inscrutable, someone > on talk-de will do BAN POTLATCH!!1!1?lol, etc. etc.
Yes, but unfortunately the result is that various threads which were at least discussing/explaining (however confusedly) substantive issues seem to have been hijacked into an attack/defend SteveC thread, which I suspect doesn't interest many people. I really want a better understanding of the licenses and their consequences in terms which a non-lawyer can understand and convey to other people. It doesn't help telling me 'this is magic stuff only a lawyer could understand'. For example, the Italian list is discussing the license in a way which I think shows it's really not understood, but I'm not sure enough of my own understanding to try to explain - maybe they are right and I'm wrong (this centres on the nature of the relationship between the database and factual licenses). The best way I can see to get the explanation at the moment is by listening to substantive discussions on this list. Longer term, I think it would be extremely helpful if the licenses themselves included an explanation for non-lawyers, in the way the gpl always did. Graham _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
