[OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing "free and open license"

[Tobias Knerr]

On 20.07.2010 11:12, John Smith wrote:
> On one hand you are avidly promoting things should be allowed to go to
> PD, on the other hand you keep saying CC-by-SA isn't good enough and
> frankly I can't see this logic, either you want PD and in which case
> CC-by-SA may be for all intents and purposes offer just that, or you
> want protection for the database, please take one stance and stop flip
> flopping, you aren't doing yourself or anyone else any favours...

A broken CC-by-SA can be seen as combining the disadvantages of PD
(allows malicious users to use the data in undesirable ways) with those
of working SA (limits what benevolent users can do with the data).

It's entirely consistent to believe that CC-by-SA is therefore worse
than both PD and working SA. Holding this opinion is compatible with
both prefering PD over working SA and prefering working SA over PD.

Tobias Knerr