[Osmf-talk] New license change proposal status
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
> 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
That's what *you* think it means. I think it means "Whatever, be like FreeBSD and let's die as quickly as possible".
More information about the osmf-talk