Hi,
Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
I'm sorry, but idea that PD fans holds all license question hostage
and therefore CT is needed is stupidest thing I ever heard during my
entire life.
Nobody said anything about holding anything hostage. There's lots of
parties to this agreement and everyone has to give something away for
this to work. This is about finding a way forward together, not against
each other.
There are many people who have one problem or another with the license
change. There are some who say "I will say no if there is the danger of
even one node being lost in the process!". There are some who say "I
will say no unless produced works are made share-alike!". There are some
who say "I will say no if there is any chance that the project ever goes
PD even if the vast majority of contributors want it!". There are some
who say "I will say no if the PD option is not properly considered!"
You might like to put all these people in one room and have them battle
it out, and whoever wins is right and all the others are "stupid". But
this is not how things work; we're trying to build a consensus here
where we get *all* these people to say: "Ok, this new license is perhaps
not 100% what I wanted but it is the right way forward".
This is not about one side winning and one side losing.
Also creating license AND then creating CT which practically destroys
idea of license just because there part of community which disagrees
I think you should read my message(s) again. Nobody said that the CT
were created "just because" some people didn't like the license. (In
fact I have yet to meet someone who says he *likes* the license -
wouldn't we all be happy if we could spend our time with other things?)
Make your choice - is it SA/Attribution, or it is PD then. You can't have
both, period.
First of all, this is not generally true because the idea of dual
licensing does exist. We have chosen not to investigate this further at
this time, and we are preparing to change to a license that is
SA/Attribution for data. This move has my support. Still that does in no
way mean that you should not create an environment were future license
changes, if deemed necessary by a vast majority of the community, are
less painful than what we have today.
Even more - having so much problem with this change, do
you really expect to change license *again* in the future?
Exactly. There is never going to be another license change like the one
we are seeing now, where every contributor has to be asked individually.
The only viable future path for license changes is via the CT.
All this CT farce comes from having unrealistic expectations about
future - and for that you are ready to loose quite significant amount
of data.
I think you are getting all worked up because you have misunderstood the
situation. ODbL is a completely new license which has never been used on
a grand scale. It would be utterly negligent to *not* have a safeguard
in place that lets us move away from ODbL without having to go through
all this again.
p.s. I still want to hear official word from Steve or anyone about CT
Section 3, even if it is no. But please without "PD crowd is mighty"
crap
You have used "stupid" twice in this post, and now "crap". Please mind
your language or find someone else to discuss your ideas with.
Also, I think that you have already been told - yesterday, by Andy Allan
- that the License Working Group is quite busy and may take several
weeks to respond. However I should not be surprised if the answer you
receive from them will also tell you about the need to find solutions
that the whole community can work with; if you discount this idea as
"crap" beforehand then there might not be much sense in answering at all.
Bye
Frederik
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
