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

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
> 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".

"Free and open". And personally, I think that's just about ok - OSM is 
about creating a free map of the world, not a share-alike map of the 
world. If any any future time OSM thinks that a non-share-alike license 
would be best - why should we, today, try to dictate our wish to them?

I don't share your sentiment that providing a license change path for 
the future actually throws away any good work. If the new license works 
well for everybody, there will be no reason to change it, and the good 
work will be with us forever.

> If this can be clarified with SA and Attribution clauses, then everything is very very ok.

Not for me; I think it is beyond our mandate add this restriction. It is 
also far from "clarifying", indeed it adds more problems. If you look at 
CC-BY-SA vs. ODbL, you see that while both are essentially share-alike, 
the SA provision extends to slightly different things with ODbL than 
with CC-BY-SA. Some things are share-alike under CC-BY-SA but not under 
ODbL, and vice versa. The same could happen with any future license; it 
might still be "essentially" a share-alike license but it might free 
some things from the share-alike requirement, or add others to it. If 
the CT now demanded the new license be "share-alike", who would have the 
power to decide whether it is "share-alike enough"?

Bye
Frederik