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

[John Smith]

On 19 July 2010 06:27, Peteris Krisjanis <pecisk at gmail.com> wrote:
> I know you like to have personal flame war, but in nutshell ODBL is
> share alike, so no problems here. I have two questions though:
> 1) Why we need CT in first place
> 2) What section 3 is about

http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms

3. OSMF agrees to use or sub-license Your Contents as part of a
database and only under the terms of one of the following licenses:
ODbL 1.0 for the database and DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of
the database; CC-BY-SA 2.0; or another free and open license. Which
other free and open license is chosen by a vote of the OSMF membership
and approved by at least a 2/3 majority vote of active contributors.

An "active contributor" is defined as:

    a natural person (whether using a single or multiple accounts) who
has edited the Project in any 3 calendar months from the last 12
months (i.e. there is a demonstrated interest over time); and
    has maintained a valid email address in their registration profile
and responds within 3 weeks.