[OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing "free and open license"

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
> I still haven't heard from SteveC or others from OSMF official answer
> wouldn't adding SA clause to section 3 in CT help situation a little -
> at least it would give contributors a promise that if there another
> license change is needed, license still will be SA (in a spirit of
> ODBL).

-1

I have heard people complain about many things but not about that 
section not enforcing SA for eternity. I don't think it would help the 
situation in anyway; it would only further alienate those who don't like 
SA. What's on the table right now is a delicate balance between 
different interests. Trying to take something away now will upset the 
balance.

And honestly, if at any future time two thirds of active OSM 
contributors want to change to a non-SA license, why should we keep them 
from it? In one or two years, "two thirds of active contributors" will 
be a greater number of people than all of us today. Who are we to tell 
them what to do? We're the minority ;)

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"