[OSM-legal-talk] Contact Info For Tom Hughes Regarding Public Domain Mailing List

[SteveC]

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  
> based
> in a negativist, paranoid world view where everyone is out to cheat  
> you.

... 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  
was nice".

> If I give you a gift, there's a certain social/moral obligation for  
> you
> 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,
> whatever.

That's just game theory see

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Evolution-Co-Operation-Penguin-Press-Science/dp/0140124950/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224961441&sr=8-1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iterated_prisoner%27s_dilemma#The_iterated_prisoner.27s_dilemma

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_Tat

> 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  
> something
> 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  
> things
> 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.  
> OSM
> 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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

> 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  
> cool
> 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  
> be
> sued. (I say this to keep the gift analogy; I know that share-alike  
> only
> 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/ 
> FIL
> 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... :-)

Best

Steve