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

[Simon Ward]

On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 08:05:58PM +0200, SteveC wrote:
 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,

That is just a part of the problem:  The only question that is being
asked is if we agree to the ODbL. We also need to take into account at
least:

  * Do you agree to license your data under the DbCL?
  * Do you agree to the contributor terms?

Simon
-- 
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20100719/11305c8f/attachment.pgp>