On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 4:02 PM, SteveC <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Oct 15, 2010, at 1:32 PM, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: > >> On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 10:22:56 -0600 >> SteveC <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Anthony is just trolling. He's been kicked out of wikipedia, as noted >>> multiple times. Ignore him. >> >> That is untruthful. > > Which bit?
I'm not trolling. I'm pointing out a fact, which happens to be an argument against ODbL. The fact of the matter is that Mapquest is required to release its tiles under a free license due to CC-BY-SA, and would not be required to release its tiles under a free license were OSM under ODbL. If you want to argue that they would continue to release their tiles under a free license even after the switch to ODbL, and that it would in fact be in their best interest to continue to do so, I suppose you can make that argument. But then I wonder what the point is of not requiring it, if it's in the best interest of companies to do it anyway. Once again, as with many other aspects of the ODbL switch, there are two contradictory arguments being used, both in favor of the ODbL. On one hand it's being claimed that the weak copyleft of ODbL provides greater incentives for companies to use OSM, and on the other hand it's being claimed that companies aren't going to take advantage of that weak copyleft. I also haven't been kicked out of Wikipedia, though you have claimed it multiple times. Feel free to tell others to ignore me, but take your own advice, and stop telling lies about me. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
