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

[John Smith]

On 20 July 2010 16:55, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
> The contributor terms are linked to the license change question and cannot
> be viewed in isolation.

Why not?

It seems like a fairly arbitrary decision to force them to be linked...

> 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.

I believe this is the point Steve keeps pointing out, there was no
direct consequences at the time, and people were assuming there is
still outs later if problems were discovered and up until that point
the emphasis was strongly on the new license, I don't recall much
being said about the new terms until recently, at which point people
were concluding that the new CTs were not going to be compatible with
data imports already in the system let alone new imports.