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

[andrzej zaborowski]

On 19 July 2010 22:06, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
> 4. Is their contribution so important to OSM that OSM will let them decide
> what licenses are acceptable for us?

It's similar to the compiler warnings, sometimes you don't want to
change your code just because the compiler can't understand it and you
have to turn them off but often they point out an actualy issue in the
code, which is more likely the case here.

Maybe contributors should have a choice of whether they want to allow
the OSMF to publish their contributions under CC0, a free and open
license decided by active contributors, ODbL 1+ or ODbL 1.0.  Other
mappers need to be contacted if you want to use their data under
license X.  That way OSM-derived data could be re-imported using
accounts set up with the ODbL-only CT.

It's an issue for many programmers in oss to allow their code used
under licenses they don't know yet, it's the same for mappers.

Cheers