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

[andrzej zaborowski]

On 16 November 2010 18:23, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Richard Fairhurst
> <richard at systemed.net> wrote:
>> 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.

Is your opinion that no license could protect OSM data so that
share-alike and attribution are enforceable in practice?  If not then
you could perhaps help in writing a better license so it can become
the OSM's license or the ODbL 1.1

Cheers