[Osmf-talk] New license change proposal status

[Matt Amos]

80n wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Matt Amos <matt at asklater.com 
> <mailto:matt at asklater.com>> wrote:
> 
>     80n wrote:
>      > For the record I am still in favour of an attribution /
>     share-alike type
>      > of license but strongly believe that the new license proposal is
>     not the
>      > right solution.  I have no problem with anyone who wants to make
>     their
>      > contributions available in the public domain.
> 
>     it would really help if you could say why you think the license proposal
>     isn't the right solution and what, if anything, you think the right
>     solution is.
> 
>     Mike has started a page for it, if you would prefer to put this on the
>     wiki:
>     http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Why_You_Should_Vote_No
> 
> 
> Many of the issues relate to the Contributor Terms and, as you know, 
> have already been presented to the LWG.  Some were addressed, others 
> such as the OSM's ODbL data being incompatible with other ODbL datasets 
> have been left unresolved.
> 
> Details here: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_0hnnw6tc9

and, you'll remember, we dealt with *all* of those except the one you 
cited. as richard pointed out, the issue of contributor terms 
relicensing vs. accepting odbl datasets isn't one that can be easily 
resolved. you think that accepting odbl datasets is more important, i 
think that being able to practically relicense at a later date is more 
important.

cheers,

matt