[OSM-legal-talk] Contact Info For Tom Hughes Regarding Public Domain Mailing List
steve at asklater.com
Sat Oct 25 20:08:54 BST 2008
On 25 Oct 2008, at 11:56, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> What I don't like about share-alike is the small-minded attempt to
> codify this
> giving away into something legally binding. To me, this is deeply
> in a negativist, paranoid world view where everyone is out to cheat
... which is sort of the basis for the free market
> Which *may* be actually true but I choose to live my life on the
> assumption that most people are good, which makes for an altogether
> happier existence, or at least it worked for me so far.
I think in Hogfather by Terry Pratchett there's a jingle played in a
santa-like grotto for children titled "wouldn't it be nice if everyone
> If I give you a gift, there's a certain social/moral obligation for
> to give me a gift too, at the next comparable opportunity. You can
> choose not to and you won't be sued, maybe you have good reasons,
That's just game theory see
> That's the way I like to do it with my work: I give it to
> others as a gift; no strings attached, you don't have to give
> back but if you use a lot of free stuff then, unless your morals are
> completely fucked, you will become part of that culture and give
> away as well. (There will always be some who take and don't give, but
> then there will also be those who give and don't take so who cares.
> got TIGER for free, encompassing about 15 times the volume of data
> amassed by the community so far at the time.)
Yes but we're the only people who have ever tried to improve it
> What share-alike advocates do is they give away something that looks
> like a gift and they keep droning on about how this is all free and
> and a culture of freedom and so on, but before you open the parcel you
> have to sign a contract that says you have to give something back or
> sued. (I say this to keep the gift analogy; I know that share-alike
> forces you to give back what you do with the gift, not something else,
> but it doesn't make a difference for my point.)
Then don't use it, it's a free country.
> In a world of good people, you don't need share-alike.
In a world with unicorns I would be king.
> You only need it once you subscribe to the "they'll cheat you where
> they can" world view.
> Maybe I'm just not old and grumpy enough for that yet.
> That being said, "for the avoidance of doubt", I do support the ODbL/
> combo; if we manage to iron out some of the issues then we are
> likely to
> have something better than we have now. But that doesn't change my
> perception that share-alike advocates are a bunch of worrywarts.
And you're an idealist... :-)
More information about the legal-talk