2010/7/19 Frederik Ramm <[email protected]>: > John, > > John Smith wrote: >> >> I wonder if you realise the fine line you are walking here by >> employing such hard line tactics, > > I am not employing hard line tactics, I am simply suggesting to go ahead > with what is on the table now. > >> you are literally risking an out >> right rejection of ODBL because of this. How much time and effort will >> have been in vein exactly? > > I am not suggesting to reject ODbL. I am suggesting to accept the > Contributor Terms exactly as they have been produced by the time and effort > you mention. >
Sorry, but as far as I remember CT "suddenly" appeared on the table. Before that there was just ODBL. I still haven't heard strong argument why CT are needed. CT practically says "Ups, we didn't get ODBL as we wanted this time, here, sign over your rights, we will try to force another one later". Maybe it's not original intent meant by creators, but it really feels/sounds/looks like one. Cheers, Peter. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
