[Osmf-talk] License with or without virus

SteveC steve at asklater.com
Tue Dec 8 20:58:36 UTC 2009

On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:39 PM, 80n wrote:

> 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.

I've got to ask... have you actually lost the plot George?

You can't _seriously_ be trying to claim that CCBYSA is fine, given all the evidence presented? This is what I tell people who accuse me of being too harsh on the mailing lists now and again, that the people I'm dealing with aren't rational anyway so things like Matt's careful arguments won't affect them.

Yours &c.


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list