[OSM-legal-talk] New site about the license change

[Anthony]

On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Richard Fairhurst
<richard at systemed.net> wrote:
> I release all my OSM work as
> public domain anyway and believe that CC-BY-SA is a deeply inequitable
> licence when applied to data.

I really don't get this.  What is inequitable about CC-BY-SA?  The
requirement to share-alike?

I thought the problem with CC-BY-SA was supposed to be that it didn't
"protect" enough.

> The reason I support
> ODbL is that it's a more equitable licence that fixes issues with CC-BY-SA
> and that the community can get behind.

Can you be specific about that?  What is more equitable about it?
What issues does it fix?

> I'd personally rather have PD, but
> the community consensus is not there for that; and if the community wishes
> to have a share-alike licence, I'm not comfortable with recommending a
> "leaky" licence whose share-alike provisions can be trivially circumvented.

What makes you believe that the ODbLs provisions cannot also be
trvially circumvented?  Just because of the contract law provisions?
That's the most trivially circumvented part of the ODbL.  You just
don't agree to the contract.