[OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?

[John Smith]

On 19 July 2010 05:37, Richard Weait <richard at weait.com> wrote:
> You are creating yet another theoretical situation, John.  Suddenly,
> in your perspective, the community is clamouring for the next license
> change and the next license change after that?  I don't see it
> happening.

If you are going to get picky at least use the right term,
hypothetical, since theories can be tested and at this point in time
they can't be, that doesn't mean they won't be in future, which is why
section 3 of the new CTs in incompatible with existing data. If things
are so certainly going to stay more or less as they are, what is the
harm in defining 'free and open' more explicitly to include an
attribution/share alike licenses only?