On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Peter Körner <[email protected]> wrote: > Am 10.08.2010 17:55, schrieb Peteris Krisjanis: >> >> For summary, there are: > > I'm sorry if I mixed those two groups. I'm not in 1) but I can totally > understand the problems this group of people have. > > Peter, too. >
It's a false dichotomy. Either you don't like ODbL or you're confused or you don't understand what's wrong with CC-BY-SA? No. I understand what's wrong with CC-BY-SA. But that doesn't mean I think ODbL is any better. In fact, I believe it's worse. Maybe the idea started out well. Using CC-BY-SA isn't consistent across different jurisdictions, so we want a ShareAlike license which is more consistent. But then all the special interests came in and added their two cents to the mix. Someone didn't like the fact that mashups which constitute derivative works must be ShareAlike, so they added Produced Works. Someone wanted to add a requirement to distribute the equivalent of source code when distributing the equivalent of binaries. Someone wanted to pave the way for a switch to PD. Someone wanted to give OSMF the ability to sue for violations. So all these *other* things got thrown into the switchover, in addition to the parts meant to fix the fact that using CC-BY-SA isn't consistent across different jurisdictions. And then the whole mess, with all the riders attached to it, gets sold as a way to fix the problems with CC-BY-SA. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
