Am 06.12.2009 um 10:47 schrieb Florian Lohoff: > On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 09:13:14PM -0700, SteveC wrote: >>> Richard Weait schrieb: >>>> I think the LWG has done a good job on a difficult task. A task that >>>> we, as a community, asked them to do for us because we couldn't >>>> implement a license change as a group of 20,000 (at the time) >>>> individual mappers. I'm glad that the LWG looked after our shared >>>> concerns so ably, by consulting with lawyers, the Creative Commons, >>>> the Open Knowledge Foundation and the community at large over the few >>>> years of the license discussion to date. >>> >>> I'm sorry, but for the last two years I can't remember asking for a >>> license change at all. >> >> And there lays the point, we should all do what Ulf asks for. > > So we should do the YOU or the OSMF asks us to do? > > Ulf is not alone - I havent asked ... And a lot of people did > not do so too. > > Even that i didnt ask for a license change - the new license is much to > complex > for my mind - CC-BY-SA hasnt shown any real problems up to now so i see the > whole discussion as an artificial problem.
I'm not sure if the CC-BY-SA license is really simpler than ODbL. Just look at this website here http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/summary/ and you'll see that the ODbL is as simple as CC-BY-SA. Plus it's now clear how to attribute correct and when your derived work also has to be ShareAlike and when not. Personally I'm also a PD fan and the only thing I was missing from the LWG was a survey to see if the majority of the OSM contributors wants to keep the attribution and Share alike component in a new license or if they would want completely free data under PD or CC0. Jonas _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
