[odc-discuss] First Pass on ODbL Comments

[Rufus Pollock]

2009/3/31 Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org>:
> Hi,
> Rufus Pollock wrote:
>>
>> Open code and open content both permit share-alike -- with
>
> obvious benefits for specific communities
>
> Replace "obvious" with "perceived" and I will agree. I do not think there is
> something approaching evidence or even proof that share-alike represents a
> "benefit" compared to non-share-alike options. It is an opinion held by many
> (thus "perceived"), but the benefits are all in the realm of the
> hypothetical ("if we had no share-alike license then evil things would
> certainly happen, thus it is good that we have a share-alike license").

Right. That is true for almost every aspect of this debate -- the main
objections coming from e.g. SC are also hypothetical. All I would
point out is that many of the major communities that have engaged in
"distributed peer production" have used SA licenses.

Personally I'm agnostic here: I usually use MIT for my own code and CC
attribution for my content stuff ...

> If you claim that share-alike has "obvious benefits" for specific
> communities, then I will find you communities where not using share-alike
> has equally "obvious benefits" and the argument evaporates.

Right. The debate (at least with SC) is in view not about whether
people *should* use SA but about whether "we" ("open data community")
*permit* people to use a SA. It seems to me likely that there are
circumstances where PD is most appropriate and some where SA is most
appropriate.

Rufus