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

[John Smith]

On 20 July 2010 18:59, Peteris Krisjanis <pecisk at gmail.com> wrote:
> Frederik, again you mix it all up. I said i'm fine with ODBL (and so
> far everyone who rants about CT says nothing bad about ODBL). I truely
> respect huge work putted into it. What I don't like is that CT section
> 3 practically strips all this good work away, with having vague
> definition of "new and open license". If this can be clarified with SA
> and Attribution clauses, then everything is very very ok.

I'm starting to wonder if this is intentional misdirection to keep
confusing the issue of a relicensing with whole sale update of
contributor terms.