-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Matt Amos schreef: > we're talking about moving to another > license with very similar requirements, but a different > implementation, and that's not "open" and "free" anymore? it would > really help me if i could understand your position.
Its honestly terribly simple. We get into a discussion over moving from a widely used `GPL2.0' like license that works for everyone, and best of all is compatible with everyone. Some folks here think that BSD style should be our target. Now the stearing committee thinks that for better protection we should go for OSI-APPROVED-LICENSE-X; that nobody is compatible with yet and worse. If we were Linux, we would have to remove our cool exotic network card drivers just to facilitate this move. And worst of all, all the nice vendors we were just talking with that were moved to going open are now bound to a contract... that sounds so... formal? Until anyone can guarantee that every bit of CC-BY-SA could be used without problems in the new framework; I'm a skeptic. And basically think about the deletionism in Wikipedia. Or wasting capital in real life. Stefan -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEAREKAAYFAksbQvwACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn3Q1wCeLFtNkW2WXORuCShZtv4TI9ju cxUAn1Q5U1CB+9JDK+Yw4cyFQPTfS0+1 =Ygw9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
