<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On 05/12/2009, at 3:33 AM, 80n wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Henk Hoff <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:henk@toffehoff.nl">henk@toffehoff.nl</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
We have had a very long process of getting to where we are now. There was always a pretty consistent message from the Foundation "we want to keep the SA and BY clauses in place". We simply cannot ask the membership to go for a license without these provisions. Not at this time, just before the membership vote. <div>
<br></div><div>The question now is: is ODbL a better license for OSM than CC-BY-SA. yes or no.<br></div></blockquote><div><br>The actual question that members are being asked to vote on is: "Question: Do you approve the process of moving OpenStreetMap to the ODbL?"<br>
<br>This is not just voting for the ODbL but also voting for the other elements of the proposal, in particular the Contributor Terms.<br></div></div></blockquote></div><br><div>In addition to not just being the ODbL but the other bits too, the question is also not "is is better" but "is is better enough that we are willing to lose a lot of data for it?".</div><div><br></div><div>"Perfect is the enemy of good" and all that, but you still have to ask yourself whether it's better enough to be worth the pain of losing a pile of data.</div></body></html>