[OSM-legal-talk] Attempt to clarify
gerv at gerv.net
Fri Feb 22 13:52:44 GMT 2008
> But personally, I *do* have a principled objection to share-alike. I
> think it is the choice of the petty-minded, of people who can't let
> go, who praise themselves as giving something away when in fact
> they're just laying out a bait; people who really want to control and
> enforce and sue and compel; people who would not hesitate one second
> to employ DRM and stuff if it could be used to further their goals.
The problem with this view is that it has no correspondence with reality.
Or, at least, it _could_ be that all these people who say "I support
copyleft" but also say "DRM is evil" are lying to you and part of a
large global conspiracy to secretly keep PD geodata from the world for
their own evil ends, but if you are that paranoid, I really can't help you.
Denying that your opponents hold the views they hold is not normally a
good way to engage in debate.
"Well, I think X and Y"
"No, you don't!"
Also, I would take issue with your loaded language:
"bait" implies trap implies hidden, but there's nothing hidden about the
licensing terms of OSM. You can choose to use the data and follow them,
"control and enforce and sue and compel" - the law of the land currently
controls and enforces and compels me to drive on the correct side of the
road, to pay for goods instead of stealing them, and so on. Not all
enforcement and compelling is automatically wrong.
"people who can't let go" - if you go into a shop and take something off
the shelf and walk out with it, and the security guard stops you, do you
accuse him of being "someone who can't let go"? The difference here is
that some OSM participants want to trade, and you want to give away.
Neither is ethically superior or inferior.
More information about the legal-talk