[OSM-talk] Wanted - spare CC-BY-SA account

[Anthony]

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Peter Körner <osm-lists at mazdermind.de> wrote:
> Am 10.08.2010 17:55, schrieb Peteris Krisjanis:
>>
>> For summary, there are:
>
> I'm sorry if I mixed those two groups. I'm not in 1) but I can totally
> understand the problems this group of people have.
>
> Peter, too.
>

It's a false dichotomy.  Either you don't like ODbL or you're confused
or you don't understand what's wrong with CC-BY-SA?  No.

I understand what's wrong with CC-BY-SA.  But that doesn't mean I
think ODbL is any better.  In fact, I believe it's worse.

Maybe the idea started out well.  Using CC-BY-SA isn't consistent
across different jurisdictions, so we want a ShareAlike license which
is more consistent.  But then all the special interests came in and
added their two cents to the mix.  Someone didn't like the fact that
mashups which constitute derivative works must be ShareAlike, so they
added Produced Works.  Someone wanted to add a requirement to
distribute the equivalent of source code when distributing the
equivalent of binaries.  Someone wanted to pave the way for a switch
to PD.  Someone wanted to give OSMF the ability to sue for violations.

So all these *other* things got thrown into the switchover, in
addition to the parts meant to fix the fact that using CC-BY-SA isn't
consistent across different jurisdictions.  And then the whole mess,
with all the riders attached to it, gets sold as a way to fix the
problems with CC-BY-SA.