At 09:24 PM 6/12/2009, [email protected] wrote: >Quoting Anthony <[email protected]>: > >> Part of me suspects that this whole notion of removing contributions from >> people who don't agree is going to get dropped. At least for the >> contributors who don't respond one way or the other. It's just going to >> destroy too much of the database. > >Wow, this whole issue has kept me up all night, just reading through the emails >and having the implications dawn on me. > > >Have I got this straight? That I *must* agree to this odbl licence, or my >(considerable) amount of edits will get *nuked* from the canonical OSM >database? What a Hobson's choice. > >I'd better go and see what this odbl is then?
Good idea. ;-) We really, really, really, like to keep your and everyone's edits going forward. But we have to respect your choice. Under the current regime, you are allowing your contributions to be used only under CC BY SA 2.0. We could duck the issue now, but does even the most diehard CC BY SA 2.0 supporter expect us to want the same license in 5 years, in 50 years? Our intent is that ODbL is designed with the same rights as current license in mind, but clears up CC BY-SA ambiguities. One of the objectives of current activity is to get reasonable community consensus that is indeed the case, before presenting you with this choice. Mike http://www.osmfoundation.org/images/3/3c/License_Proposal.pdf - An overview of the whole shebang http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/summary/ ODbL Plain Language Summary http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/ ODbL 1.0 _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
