[OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions

[Simon Ward]

On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 02:32:39PM -0400, Anthony wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 2:21 PM, andrzej zaborowski <balrogg at gmail.com> wrote:
> > That's why I think the issue of whether we really want the ability for
> > the license to be changed completely should be discussed first.
> > Obviously those who created the current version of CT think that it is
> > a good idea, and Frederik thinks so too and is very vocal about it.
> > Despite that it does not seem the majority thinks so, please see
> > http://doodle.com/5ey98xzwcz69ytq7
> 
> That poll is a bit misleading […]

Just a point on that poll: I answered ability to accept ODbl imports is
more important because:

  * The assumption was that “the ability to react to change and
    relicense is more important” requires a very liberal rights grant. I
    don’t think this is the case.

  * When discussing a free licence, I would like to see it interoperable
    with itself, even if OSM only accepted large imports on a
    case‐by‐case basis.

The wording on that poll is also very biased towards the liberal rights
grant, and doesn’t paint each option equally (if anything, giving the
import option *more* weight).  There were only 34 participants. It
wasn’t a very good poll.

Simon
-- 
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20100904/9dbacf1c/attachment.pgp>