On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 08:49:48PM -0400, Anthony wrote: > > Maybe the idea started out well. Using CC-BY-SA isn't consistent > across different jurisdictions, so we want a ShareAlike license which ^^^^ Make that a You or I ....
I dont want/need share-alike - and i'd be happy with PD - And thats the problem where my frustration stems from. It might be that CC-BY-SA is unsuitable for our project - But the LWG in my visibility only cared on another Share-Alike license and not about the general consensus whether joe mapper WANTS relicensing, and if we want to have relicensing which WAY we want to head down - More openess and freedom or more share-alike and protection .... From the beginning it was set in stone that we gonna relicense and we are going down the Share Alike path ... It was just a matter of name of the license and making it as multifold and tight that it should fit into any jurisdication. Probably the mass is happy with a defunct license which is not enforcable and must be seen as a whishlist, or would like to drop most of the legal stuff and more care on interesting usage than on "big corp stealing our data" > 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. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk