[Osmf-talk] New license change proposal status

[Richard Fairhurst]

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)