[Osmf-talk] New license change proposal status

SteveC steve at asklater.com
Wed Dec 2 18:17:58 UTC 2009

On Dec 2, 2009, at 4:14 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> 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."

That's what *you* think it means. I think it means "Whatever, be like FreeBSD and let's die as quickly as possible".

Yours &c.


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list