[Osmf-talk] New license change proposal status

[80n]

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
>>    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.
>

Matt
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.

80n
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20091203/0f113e48/attachment.html>