On 29/08/2010, at 19.35, Russ Nelson wrote:
I've re-thought this, and I think that the proper course of action,
which will do the least damage to the community, is to stay with
CC-By-SA. First, because all the data in OSM is already licensed
under that license. Second, because it will do minimum damage to the
community (the discussion here is evidence that the community WILL be
badly harmed by relicensing). Third, because if the worst thing that
happens is that the CC-By-SA turns out to be unenforcible, then the
data will be in the public domain. For the reasons I listed above,
that's not a bad thing.
Community first, license second.
Thank you!
I agree completely. I have no set opinions on one license vs. the
other. I think that ODbL is probably more appropriate license, and
that would be the one to use if the OSM project was started today.
However, I see the license change as very disruptive and not good at
all for the communtiy. Not because of one license is better than the
other, but because of the disturbance it creates in an otherwise
enthusiastic and industrious community. I can live with CC-By-SA... I
really don't care that much.
Changing the license at this point in a successful project is like
building a houise, and then deciding you want to change all the bricks
because you don't like the colour of the old ones. Perhaps it is true
that the house is not as pretty as it could have been, but it is a
hopeless endeavour, full of problems and without much gain.
Cheers,
Morten
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
