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

[Peteris Krisjanis]

2010/7/19 Andy Allan <gravitystorm at gmail.com>:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Peteris Krisjanis <pecisk at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi again!
>>
>> 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).
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> The OSMF (i.e. the LWG) isn't likely to give you an answer in the
> timeframe you expect - they meet once a week and have a huge
> (growing?) amount of things to deal with. Even on a good day it might
> take 2-3 weeks for them to get you a response, and if it involves
> legal advice maybe even longer.
>
> I'm not trying to discourage you, just hoping that you realise these
> things can take a while, and hoping that you have the patience to
> wait!
>

Andy, I don't have problem to wait - I and probably lot of other
mappers just want to hear straight and honest answer.

Cheers,
Peter.