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

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Simon Ward wrote:
> Is it really that bad to ask that the contributor terms require any new
> licence to be in the same spirit as the ODbL + DbCL or other share alike
> licenses?

I'm not saying it is "bad", I'm just saying that nobody has ever made an 
effort to find out what "spirit" most of the contributors would prefer; 
the fact alone that they are willing to participate in a SA project does 
not say anything.

So either get a proper backing for whatever spirit you want to cement 
for all eternity - i.e. write to all contributors, explain to them what 
PD, BY, BY-SA is and what the problems and advantages of each are, and 
ask them what license they would like the project to be under, then 
start relicensing the project under whatever was favoured by the 
majority. (I think that an attribution-only ODbL variant has already 
been launched or is at least in the making.)

Or, if you'd rather not do that now but go ahead with ODbL as proposed, 
at least do not rule out that option forever. (And it is safe to assume 
that any license change outside the corridor given by the CT is ruled 
out forever because it would mean repeating what we have now.)

By at least theoretically allowing upgrades to any free and open 
licenses, and not just share-alike licenses, you effectively silence 
opposition from the PD people who would otherwise demand that a licence 
change to PD *now* would at least have to be investigated (which it 
hasn't been).

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"