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

[Dave Stubbs]

On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 10:05 AM, John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>

I'm starting to wonder if this whole mailing list is part of an
extraterrestrial plan to take over the world. If you think about it
carefully the only reason anyone would go over the same exact point
280 times a day is if they were under some form of mind control. Of
course I may be getting the wrong end of the stick. It's entirely
possible to aliens have put a bunch of people under mind control, and
those people in a desperate bid to free themselves have gone into
overdrive mode in an attempt to overload the alien probes. In which
case, given the advanced state of ET technology, it's quite possible
this thread, and others like it, will need to go on forever. At least
it's giving the rest of us fair warning of the coming apocalypse
though. And at least I'm not sharing batty ideas with the entire
planet for no apparent constructive reason. Oh... shit.