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

[Simon Ward]

On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 08:31:42PM +0100, Graham Jones wrote:
> It is true that we had a vote, but I am becoming less convinced that we
> voted the right way.
> 
> I voted in favour of the change on the basis that at the superficial level
> the existing and proposed licences seemed so similar that I could not see
> what the problem was - ODBL looked so much like CC-BY-SA for data that it
> did not seem like an issue.   I can't even remember if I took much notice of
> the contributor terms....

I certainly voted based on the license only and not on the contributor
terms, with which I later recalled disagreeing too on one of these
mailing ilsts.

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/a3e2c774/attachment.pgp>