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

[Simon Ward]

On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 08:55:17AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> 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.

I approved the process for the license change and somehow managed to
miss the contributor terms.  I wasn’t aware of them when I voted, my
mistake, although may be I could have been made more aware—someone else
appeared to think the CTs “snuck” in quietly too.

I took a look in the December archives for osmf-talk:

http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2009-December/000670.html

On legal-talk some days before, I said I had already responded to the polls:

http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-December/003029.html

I’m quite surprised how much I have *not* changed my opinions.

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/20100720/fca7e180/attachment.pgp>