-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Matt Amos schreef: > 1) continue to use a license which legal experts seem to agree doesn't > work for us. > 2) move to a new license. > > option (2) will likely mean that some data is lost and i don't think > option (1) is what people really want. which do you prefer?
The point is of course, is there a threat, or is the ambiguously enough for other providers not to touch it because the same could happen to their information. If there is none, 1 is good enough. Because people perceive `freeness' in different levels. I still would find it a lot better if there was actually a copyright distinction. But without getting people between layers compete for `freeer' data. Honestly I don't see why some of you are only focused on contracting 'SA'; therefore I wonder what would happen if the opposite method was used; attribution only, like is legislated in the Bern convention. Stefan -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEAREKAAYFAksbTpoACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn0wfwCeJ20dIKbztt+z2m5VFbD2tB+B u7UAoJFGNbt/OIt4uSgVREWta+SYJSH8 =EZ87 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
