Hi, Simon Ward wrote:
Is it really that bad to ask that the contributor terms require any new licence to be in the same spirit as the ODbL + DbCL or other share alike licenses?
I'm not saying it is "bad", I'm just saying that nobody has ever made an effort to find out what "spirit" most of the contributors would prefer; the fact alone that they are willing to participate in a SA project does not say anything.
So either get a proper backing for whatever spirit you want to cement for all eternity - i.e. write to all contributors, explain to them what PD, BY, BY-SA is and what the problems and advantages of each are, and ask them what license they would like the project to be under, then start relicensing the project under whatever was favoured by the majority. (I think that an attribution-only ODbL variant has already been launched or is at least in the making.)
Or, if you'd rather not do that now but go ahead with ODbL as proposed, at least do not rule out that option forever. (And it is safe to assume that any license change outside the corridor given by the CT is ruled out forever because it would mean repeating what we have now.)
By at least theoretically allowing upgrades to any free and open licenses, and not just share-alike licenses, you effectively silence opposition from the PD people who would otherwise demand that a licence change to PD *now* would at least have to be investigated (which it hasn't been).
Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [email protected] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
