Hi, >Don't get me wrong, as long as we have this license we should insist on >people following it, if only to respect our work. But by making >comparisons like the above you're already playing what I like to call >the "music industry game", which is neatly illustrated here:
The music (and software) industry already gets nervous when people are consuming the content for free. They ignore the fact that most people wouldn't have spent money to purchase the content as they consume it only as long as the costs are zero. In regards to OSM I think there is big difference between a breach of license where just the ego of members of community is harmed and someone is taking financial advantage by a breaching of license. I was trying to make suggestion that the first one can even lead to an advantage to OSM and the latter should lead to consequences. It might be that my proposal doesn't work as every contributor could take legal action and therefore a statement of the OSMF would be void. However, I still thinks it makes more sense to come up with a generic process rather than to discuss every case of a lack of attribution with 100 posts. Regards, Oliver -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Potential-huge-License-violation-anyone-know-anything-about-this-tp5132343p5135228.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
