[Osmf-talk] New license change proposal status
Richard Fairhurst
richard at systemeD.net
Wed Dec 2 12:14:02 UTC 2009
Frederik Ramm wrote:
> All the pain I expressed above could have been reduced a bit if you
> could have been bothered to put the three-part question to the community
> like I suggested:
>
> >> ( ) I release my data under ODbL
> >> ( ) I do not release my data under ODbL
> >> ( ) I consider all my data PD anyway and don't claim database
> >> protection so do whatever you want
>
> However, you believe that even this would overtax the average community
> member.
I strongly agree with Frederik on this one.
In my opinion - and you may say that the Potlatch author is the last
person anyone should be asking about usability ;) - offering the third
option is a _big_ win for simplicity.
Never mind the legal arguments; never mind GPL vs BSD; never mind
49.9% or 90% or CC0 or any of that. In most mappers' eyes, the three
choices above mean:
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
[ ] Yes and please don't bother me again
We tend to forget, here and on legal-talk, that by definition we are
the people who care about this deeply. Most people don't. Most people
just want to go mapping.
Offering a PD option means "Whatever. I trust you guys. I just like
mapping. I really don't want to be bothered by any more e-mails about
relicensing."
cheers
Richard
(slight postscript: as ever, I'm conflating PD and attribution-only)
More information about the osmf-talk
mailing list