>But to reiterate: I'd love to have a PD-like license or as Richard has >said even better: I'd like anything that is "non-share-alike". And I >don't agree with Oliver conclusion on what would happen (corporate >"take over").
Interesting remark: the one says something like I want to have a Volkswagen Golf. And the other says I am happy as soon as I get vehicle with four tires. A non-share-alike license can also be commercial license that isn't free... It would be interesting what the higher goal is when statements are issued that a PD-license is preferred. Who is intended to benefit from this type of license? This would definitely be topic that belongs to this threat if a candidate sees a certain group discriminated because of a wrong type of license. In essence I would like to understand who is intended to benefit from a PD-license, mappers, consumers, developers, companies, data donors? I would also like to see a statement if in the candidates' view that a shift to a PD-license would follow the Pareto principle that no group is disadvantaged while other groups are put at advantage. Regards, Oliver -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Candidacy-AGM-Foundation-2010-Girona-tp5244442p5250750.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
