[OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons

[Rob Myers]

On 08/30/2010 11:44 AM, John Smith wrote:
> On 30 August 2010 20:40, Rob Myers<rob at robmyers.org>  wrote:
>> I would never claim that switching from the GPL to BSD was minor. Or, in the
>> majority of cases, wise. But I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.
>
> You are trying to claim that open ended relicensing is a good thing,
> but at the same time you think trying to relicense a major project
> like linux from GPL to BSD would be unwise, but that's effectively
> what is being attempted here with the new CTs...

That isn't a valid comparison. The ODbL is not a BSD-style licence.

>> If you could explain this to Linus Torvalds I'd be most grateful.
>
> What's so hard to understand, software patents weren't an issue when
> the GPL v2 was published, but were later on which is why they

Or DRM. Or P2P distribution. Or, by the letter of GPL 2, *internet* 
distribution. Or non-US law. Or...

> attempted to address the issue, just like cc-by-sa v2 doesn't seem to
> cover database rights, but cc-by-sa v3 does...

Wrong and wrong. A couple of the EU 2.0 licences covered DB right. 3.0 
doesn't (it just mentions DB copyright in order to make clear that it 
doesn't cover DB right) .

- Rob.