[OSM-talk] OSM license change: A license to kill? -> How to make a nightmare come true!

[SteveC]

On 4 Mar 2009, at 06:49, LeedsTracker wrote:

> 2009/3/4 Iván Sánchez Ortega <ivan at sanchezortega.es>:
>> On the other hand, I'm absolutely sure that the ODbL will fail and be
>> exploited. The same way that the GPL2 was exploited by TiVo. I'm  
>> absolutely
>> sure the ODbL will not address problems in different jurisdictions  
>> just the
>> same way the first version of the CC licenses didn't. We now have  
>> GPL3 and CC
>> 3.0, and at some point we'll have ODbL2 and ODbL3 and whatnot.
>>
>> So, what's the big deal about the ODbL not addressing every single  
>> issue on
>> its first incarnation?
>
> I think this is spot on. Some posters seem to want the new license to
> be exactly right, impervious and unassailable, at the first version.
>
> I'm not saying "anything goes", and I understand the impulse toward
> perfectionism and thinking round every last logical chink in the
> armour.
>
> But other licenses are revised and improved over the years - they'll
> never settle at a definitive, final version, not least because law and
> case law evolves too.
>
> It feels like applying for a job - you keep tweaking the wording of
> your application, or rewriting whole paragraphs, but the time must
> come when you decide it's "good enough", and put it in the post.
>
> The next application can be different, improved, but v1 often really
> is good enough.

Yes to both you and Ivan. This is a so-called 'good, better, best'  
approach where we take a step in the right direction not a giant leap  
to Utopia.

It's clear CCBYSA doesn't work, it's clear ODbL is a step. It's not  
perfect, but it's a fantastic first step.

Best

Steve