Hi, On 18 July 2010 19:54, SteveC <[email protected]> wrote: > And anyway, you're comparing it to an absolute situation of status quo - that > we all just hum along on CCBYSA because nearmap won't work with us. We can't > do that. We all (well nearly all) know that CCBYSA just doesn't work, so > you're saying no to the ODbL, no to PD too (because nearmap wont like that > either as its not SA)... You can't go through life being a big bag of 'no' > like this because nothing will ever happen. The LWG is trying to make a bunch > of reasonable decisions that will inevitably disenfranchise some people. They > are trying to minimise the number of people disenfranchised and the amount of > it, and if you just say 'no' to everything you just look like an unreasonable > extremist and risk nobody spending time on your otherwise reasonable points.
Maybe when you say ODbL you mean ODbL + CT, but I'll just point out that John didn't seem to oppose ODbL, perhaps the opposite, just opposing to the text of the CT. The CT is also what nearmap is not accepting and what I would have trouble accepting. If the LWG is trying to minimise the number of people unhappy with the changeover process, they're doing a bad job (see poll below). The have not asked (that I know) the community on the mailing list whether the CT should make the OSMF the licensing body and make the authors grant these rights to the OSMF. To any arguments that rose so far about this point, I've only seen the members of LWG explain for umpteenth time why they think it's important for OSMF to have these rights. Some people agree that it would be good for OSMF to be able to change the license in the future, some people don't. But nearly nobody thinks that this is so important as to sacrifice for example the ability to import ODbL licensed databases, and basically remove the SA of our license as John points out. Here's an old poll (not very widely publicised) that shows this and which I've never seen the LWG respond to: http://doodle.com/5ey98xzwcz69ytq7 Cheers _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
