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

[Peteris Krisjanis]

Frederik,

I'm sorry, but idea that PD fans holds all license question hostage
and therefore CT is needed is stupidest thing I ever heard during my
entire life. PD guys need to understand that this project might
*never* submit to PD. As much as I like PD as concept, it is unreal to
implement it in global scale. If they don't like it - fine, they don't
contribute to OSM, but OSM can still use their data anyway.

Also creating license AND then creating CT which practically destroys
idea of license just because there part of community which disagrees
is stupid, plain and simple. You have to draw line somewhere. Make
your choice - is it SA/Attribution, or it is PD then. You can't have
both, period. Even more - having so much problem with this change, do
you really expect to change license *again* in the future? For what
cause?

All this CT farce comes from having unrealistic expectations about
future - and for that you are ready to loose quite significant amount
of data.

Cheers,
Peter.

p.s. I still want to hear official word from Steve or anyone about CT
Section 3, even if it is no. But please without "PD crowd is mighty"
crap