On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Greg Troxel <g...@ir.bbn.com> wrote: > I agree. I don't particularly dislike the ODBL, but I am not > comfortable with CT that grants the project permission to relicense > under non-share-alike terms later. > > [ ... ] I find that the (pushy, in my perception) relicensing issue makes me > less inclined to participate.
It's an inoculation. A bit of a pinch, and a sore spot on the arm for a day, but we're all better off afterwards. ODbL gives us the real share-alike, open data license that we wish we had available to us when the project started. CT future-proofs the project so that we can keep up with the Open Data environment that we are changing. Share-alike was the right approach when OSM started and share-alike is the right way to continue now, and likely for a very long time in the future. But at some point, when all data is Open perhaps, a re-balancing the terms of the OpenStreetMap license will make sense to the contributors to the project. They'll be able to address that, even if it is generations from now. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
