Peteris Krisjanis wrote: > I respect PD guys, but in overall, I start to grow to openly > dislike their attitude.
Could you cite who these alleged PD guys are, please? Thanks in advance. I'm getting increasingly exasperated with people projecting this big bogeyman (or strawman. A big man made out of straw bogeys) of PD onto what's meant to be a debate about exchanging one share-alike licence for another share-alike licence. PD has nothing to do with it. Full stop. OSM is a share-alike project and is always going to be a share-alike project. We were trying to talk about ODbL (remember that?) before the conspiracy theorists waded in. As someone who personally prefers PD this saddens me, not least because I can see the trend in geodata is for ever more permissive licensing and that OSM is therefore going to be out on a limb in ten years' time, probably with a bunch of local, permissively-licensed projects chipping away at it. But there's a difference between "what should be" and "what can be", and seriously, the chances of getting this fractious community to agree to a PD relicensing is nil. Never. That much should be obvious to anyone who has read the mailing lists at any point in the last five years. It isn't going to happen. At this point someone will mention the relicensing clause in the Contributor Terms. It is my opinion that this is unnecessary: the "any future version" clauses in both CC-BY-SA and ODbL should be adequate. I've told LWG this and they're considering it. (See https://docs.google.com/View?id=dc3bxdhs_3d3ws9sgn point 5.) And seriously, Aussie guys, global warming is going to fuck your precious coastline anyway so I'd stop getting quite so het up about it. :p cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Frederik-declares-war-on-data-imports-tp5385741p5385814.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
