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

[Stephen Hope]

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 ;)

We're the minority with the data at present.  Future users can do what
they like with stuff they add.  But if they want to change what I've
added, I feel like I should have a say.

Personally, anything I add can be PD for all I care.  But if I've
based it on a BY_SA source, that source has a legitimate right to be
concerned what happens to it in the future. From what I can tell, what
we are saying to them in rough terms is:

1) We're currently BY-SA
2) We're planning to change to ODBL, which is BY-SA compatible.  If
you don't like the change, you can yank your data out now.
3) Oh, and any time in the future, we can change the licence again,
and you can't take your data out that time if you don't like the new
terms.

Or in other words, - "Trust us.  We promise not to be evil" (except of
course it won't be us, because as you said, we'll be in the minority
then).  Why should they?

Stephen