[Osmf-talk] License with or without virus

Henk Hoff henk at toffehoff.nl
Sat Dec 5 23:44:03 UTC 2009

The point that I was trying to make was that the issue with the vote (which
is going on at the moment) is about whether we want to move from CC-BY-SA to
ODbL (incl. of course the Contributor Terms) and not about "what other
license could also be seen as an alternative for OSM".

About the text of the question of the vote. Since there is a very clear link
to the proposal document where there is (to my opinion) a clear explanation
of the ODbL incl. the Contributor Terms, I see no reason to change the text
of the vote question. Later on in the process (when the outcome of this vote
is yes), every contributor will be asked if they agree with the Contributor


2009/12/4 80n <80n80n at gmail.com>

> On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Henk Hoff <henk at toffehoff.nl> wrote:
>> We have had a very long process of getting to where we are now. There was
>> always a pretty consistent message from the Foundation "we want to keep the
>> SA and BY clauses in place". We simply cannot ask the membership to go for a
>> license without these provisions. Not at this time, just before the
>> membership vote.
>> The question now is: is ODbL a better license for OSM than CC-BY-SA. yes
>> or no.
> The actual question that members are being asked to vote on is: "Question:
> Do you approve the process of moving OpenStreetMap to the ODbL?"
> [...]

> The question is not very clear and explict about this, to the extent that
> even you have misquoted it.  It would be clearer if the question said "Do
> you approve the process of moving OpenStreetMap to the Contributor Terms
> contract and the ODbL?".
> Since you could concievably have ODbL with the Contributor Terms isn't
> there a need for clarity here?
> 80n
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20091206/ae7a4c70/attachment.html>

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list