John Smith wrote: > I'm not being petty in the least, I want a compromise, but others > have outright refused to even consider any kind of a compromise > that will save years of work without resorting to shady legal tactics.
Hey, now that's not fair. The reason I suggested to LWG that they drop the relicensing option from the Contributor Terms, and limit future options to CC-BY-SA or ODbL[1], was precisely that: a spirit of compromise. Personally I'd love OSM to be PD, yet I suggested a scheme to LWG that would rule out OSM _ever_ being relicensed as PD. "Compromise" is probably too mild a word for that. cheers Richard [1] ODbL is defined by its maintainers Open Data Commons as "Share-Alike for data/databases", and contrary to misinformation, _does_ have an attribution requirement on Produced Works. It is a By/SA licence and will remain one. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/CC-BY-SA-derived-ODbL-data-tp5392496p5392609.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
