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

[Peteris Krisjanis]

2010/7/19 Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org>:
> John,
>
> John Smith wrote:
>>
>> I wonder if you realise the fine line you are walking here by
>> employing such hard line tactics,
>
> I am not employing hard line tactics, I am simply suggesting to go ahead
> with what is on the table now.
>
>> you are literally risking an out
>> right rejection of ODBL because of this. How much time and effort will
>> have been in vein exactly?
>
> I am not suggesting to reject ODbL. I am suggesting to accept the
> Contributor Terms exactly as they have been produced by the time and effort
> you mention.
>

Sorry, but as far as I remember CT "suddenly" appeared on the table.
Before that there was just ODBL. I still haven't heard strong argument
why CT are needed. CT practically says "Ups, we didn't get ODBL as we
wanted this time, here, sign over your rights, we will try to force
another one later". Maybe it's not original intent meant by creators,
but it really feels/sounds/looks like one.

Cheers,
Peter.