Hi Simon,<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Simon Cropper <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:scropper@botanicusaustralia.com.au">scropper@botanicusaustralia.com.au</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im"><br></div>
Without comparable stable and accepted documentation, it will be very hard to<br>
get data providers to release their data for whatever reason.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Nobody is arguing with that. It's just that CC licenses and particularly CC-BY-SA don't mean what's "on the cover" with respect to datasets. Creative Commons themselves say they shouldn't be used.</div>
<div><br></div><div>The OSM Foundation is basically saying that "sticking our collective heads in the sand and pretending it isn't a problem" is not acceptable going forward. Sure, that raises huge barriers - but better to start now than trying to do it 3 years further down the track.</div>
<div><br></div><div>The massive uptake of CC is (imho) hugely in the simple, clear, well-presented nature of the licenses. All licenses (open/closed/whatever) should strive to get to where CC is with that.</div><div><br></div>
<div>Rob :)</div><div><br></div></div>