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

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Simon Ward wrote:
> For my part, I don’t fully agree with the contributor terms, and I
> suggest we start there because they are also what I’ve seen other people
> voice their dissent about.

As I said, if you intend to further restrict possible future license 
changes via the contributor terms to something more narrow than "free 
and open", you should be prepared to offer more license choices now, 
rather than just the "yay or nay" to ODbL.

The contributor terms are linked to the license change question and 
cannot be viewed in isolation.

I would also like to draw attention to the fact that OSMF members - 
among them, I believe, yourself - have approved the process, including 
the current version of the contributor terms, with a 89% majority in 
December last year. You weren't vocal on the contributor terms in the 
months before so I am somewhat surprised that you're starting to voice 
your disagreement half a year after the vote. Of course anyone can have 
second thoughts - but remember that any change to the contributor terms 
would require repeating that OSMF member vote.

Bye
Frederik

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