[OSM-talk] BSD/CC-by/LGPL vs. SharedAlike - decide now and forever

Nick Hill nick at nickhill.co.uk
Tue Mar 21 11:18:26 GMT 2006


I would be less satisfied without a share-alike clause in the license.

I favour GPL/Share alike over BSD/LGPL style.

The argument for BSD falls into 2 camps: 1) BSD is freer, 2) BSD 
increases adoption of code.

Neither of these arguments are strong.
1) Freer: Once the work has been appropriated and a business model built 
around enclosing the work, and the additions are under a restrictive 
license, the non-enclosed work has to then compete with the enclosed 
version. If the competition fails, the work we put in has been wasted. 
We may as well have got paid for putting the work in; the work would, in 
effect, be owned by someone else.

2) A BSD style license *may* at least initially increase use of our data 
(assuming people don't turn their backs through fear of what they 
consider mis-appropriation of their works). In the longer term, it would 
likely supress use of the data as the data will be poorer for not having 
the share-alike clause.

I accept there are instances where a LGPL license works better. I could 
possibly be convinced such a license is appropriate for OSM, but I am 
currently clearly on the side of GPL style. Most importantly, it 
guarantees the work we put in remains for the public good and forbids 
enclosure. Secondly, it could actually increase long-term take up rate, 
and rate of improvement.



Immanuel Scholz wrote:
> Schuyler Erle said:
>>seek an LGPL-like solution,
> *ARGH*!
> To make it crystal clear:
> I forbid ...





More information about the talk mailing list