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

[Elena of Valhalla]

On 7/19/10, Peteris Krisjanis <pecisk at gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
> Is there any actual mapper who strictly don't like SA? So far I have
> only heard it from business people.

I do.

I used be in the SA camp, until I realized that SA is probably hurting
people who are doing creative stuff and would like to mix OSM data
with works under different SA/copyleft licenses like the GPL.

The new license is probably better for business people, who can afford
a lawyer that is able to tell them what they are able to do with OSM
data, but I'm afraid that most creative hobbists will be left with
data that may or may not be used, and is better left alone.

Of course there is still big value in plain printed maps and in
routing data under any free license, and this is why I'm still
contributing to the project;  I would just be happier with a BSD/CC-BY
like permissive license, or failing that PD

-- 
Elena ``of Valhalla''

homepage: http://www.trueelena.org
email: elena.valhalla at gmail.com