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

[John Smith]

On 19 July 2010 23:38, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
> I am not employing hard line tactics, I am simply suggesting to go ahead
> with what is on the table now.

Which many people cannot legally agree to, even if we do agree with
the ODBL. It seems to be a mad dash to force people down this path,
and I'm sure there will be plenty of data issues over looked, so much
for the 'whiter than white' approach to copyright, this whole issue
sticks of hypocrisy.

To re-iterate, anyone that has vectorised anything from Nearmap
imagery cannot agree to the new CTs because you would be in breach of
Nearmap terms for the exact reason you point out, the data could be
relicensed under a non-SA license.

> 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.

As I've written several times, I can't agree to the new CT so as a
direct result I can't agree to ODBL, along with many other people in
Australia.