[Osmf-talk] New license change proposal status
80n80n at gmail.com
Thu Dec 3 14:34:03 UTC 2009
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 2:04 PM, Matt Amos <matt at asklater.com> wrote:
> 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
>> > contributions available in the public domain.
>> it would really help if you could say why you think the license
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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.
How did you deal with point 12 about license complexity? The proposal
document misconstrues the problem as being one about readability by a
layman. The issue is about complexity of law and is more analogous to the
reliability of complex and untested software.
How did you deal with point 5 about 3 weeks not being long enough? The
final version of the license change proposal does not include the change
that you agreed to.
So, no you didn't deal with *all* of those, did you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the osmf-talk