[Osmf-talk] License with or without virus

[80n]

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 8:18 PM, Matija Nalis <
mnalis-openstreetmap-osmflist at voyager.hr> wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 01:52:48AM +0000, Matt Amos wrote:
> > 80n wrote:
> > > How many bad guys have abused OSM data so far?
> >
> > i count two that have announced it publicly; Anthony and RichardF. how
> > many others who haven't announced it, i don't know.
>
> I do not know the history behind this; could you provide me with some
> more info about what you're talking about?
>
> Both of these cases have been presented on this list in the last few days.
Each one as some part of the argument that CC-BY-SA does or doesn't work.

It seems that the LWG have spent the last two years working on a license to
protect against events that has only happened as a consequence of them
presenting the license.

They have not yet presented any prior examples that justify their assertion
that the reason for this new license is because CC BY-SA is broken.

The LWG Emperor does not appear to have any clothes.




> And it is a good idea which you've initiated here:
>
> If there are known cases where CC-BY-SA have caused problems, and we
> know/think ODbL wouldn't cause them, they should be documented on page:
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Why_You_Should_Vote_Yes
>
> That would certainly get me interested, and I don't think I'm the only one.
>
> --
> Opinions above are GNU-copylefted.
>
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20091208/582969a8/attachment.html>