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

[Peteris Krisjanis]

2010/7/19 SteveC <steve at asklater.com>:
>
> On Jul 19, 2010, at 3:34 PM, John Smith wrote:
>
>> 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 ;)
>>
>> I wonder if you realise the fine line you are walking here by
>> employing such hard line tactics, 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 think you're overblowing the numbers here with 'risking a out right rejection'. 200,000 people, or whatever, will be asked about the ODbL under the plan, and there are about 20 people here slugging it out. From my experience off list with all the people frustrated both in email and in person, those 20 or so people here just don't represent everyone else who'd prefer all this discussion to go to legal-talk and just move on with the license.

Steve, can you instead of flaming back give me stright answer what do
you think about suggestion I mentioned in the first post of this
thread?

Already thanks for answer,
Cheers,
Peter.