[OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources

[80n]

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Rob Myers <rob at robmyers.org> wrote:

>
> Yes, an upgrade clause is (on balance) good, although some people regard
> that loss of control as immoral in itself. But that already removes the
> control of individuals over the licencing other individuals can use in the
> future. And OSM has already ended up with the wrong licence once.
>
> Yes, the current license is *so* wrong that the project is a complete
failure.  There are no contributors, and nobody is able to use the content.

Measured by the simple criteria of whether or not OSM is successful then you
just can't say that it's got the wrong license.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20101210/f8bd2a65/attachment.html>