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

[John Smith]

On 19 July 2010 23:19, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
> 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 ;)

I wonder if you realise the fine line you are walking here by
employing such hard line tactics, you are literally risking an out
right rejection of ODBL because of this. How much time and effort will
have been in vein exactly?