Hi, Simon Ward wrote: > Greater certainty in one area does not necessarily mean there is greater > certainty in others. If we remove all obligation to reciprocate, > increasing the certainty that someone may redistribute the database in > their own product (it may be proprietary) without recrimination, then we > lose the certainty that derivatives would be free for all as is the > intent with share‐alike.
What I wanted to say was that, to a certain degree, *any* certainty is better than a random assortment of "may", "might", "the project consensus seems to be that...", "i am not a lawyer but...", "depending on your jurisdiction", and "depending on the judge's interpreation". If the whole thing is share-alike then I would at least like to have the rules laid out in a way that makes it clear what I have to do to be on the "right side". I am not entirely happy about your "when in doubt, try to err on the sharing side". I would very much like to avoid a situation in which an uncertainty in the interpretation of the license makes user A refrain from doing something (because he thinks it "might" be against the license) whereas user B brazenly does the same thing and gains some kind of advantage by doing it, and then A starts complaining to us. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [email protected] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
