Brendan Morley wrote: > All for addressing, as far as I can tell, a theoretical problem, with no > real-world "exploits".
I understand that actual exploits would make the problem more obvious, but I find the underlying logic questionable nevertheless. No one has broken into my house for 5 years now. Does this mean my door locks are secure? No, it might easily just mean that * most people are honest enough not break into my house * the stuff I have in here is not valuable enough * I was simply lucky Of course, it doesn't necessarily mean that the locks are insecure either, it's just that you need experts checking the locks to decide this. Similarly, that no one (we know of) has abused weaknesses in CC-by-SA so far could be because * most users of OSM like the project anyway, so they voluntarily comply * OSM is still inferior to other data sources in most places, so we aren't an attractive target; especially as we could cut off update by switching licenses (I'd expect clear support for that after an exploit) * we were simply lucky Again, just from looking at this, CC-by-SA might or might not work. It takes legal experts who check at the license to decide this. If the license has problems (and there are legal arguments indicating that they exist), just waiting until an exploit occurs is detrimental. After all, if we try to relicense in a few years, we will lose much more data (more contributors will have left/died/changed their e-mail address until then, each object will have been touched by a larger number of contributors, and of course there will be a larger amount of data in the database overall). So unfortunately, we need to decide soon - and in absence of reliable empirical data available, only theory is available. Tobias Knerr _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
