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

[Cartinus]

On Tuesday 20 July 2010 09:10:29 John Smith wrote:
> I believe this is the point Steve keeps pointing out, there was no
> direct consequences at the time, and people were assuming there is
> still outs later if problems were discovered and up until that point
> the emphasis was strongly on the new license, I don't recall much
> being said about the new terms until recently, at which point people
> were concluding that the new CTs were not going to be compatible with
> data imports already in the system let alone new imports.

If you are trying to win an argument, please stay with the facts. Don't put 
all this spin on it.

The OSMF vote started december 5th.

On december 6th PeterIto and 80n discussed exactly this point on the wiki.
<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Open_Data_License/Why_You_Should_Vote_No#OSM.27s_Contributor_Terms_are_not_compatible_with_ODbL>

This was in response of this very same subject being discussed on the mailing 
lists a few days before that.

That was one of two reasons I voted against the licence change process. The 
other reason was there was nothing in the implementation plan to consult the 
contributors before the "gun against their head" final "voting" that should 
start shortly.

In the license change proposal the CT's are explained before the ODbL itself. 
The ODbL is then followed in that document by a provisional implementation 
plan, that provides no reasonable outs after the OSMF vote.

If people really didn't now about the CT's and thought there were reasonable 
outs later in the process, then they were not paying attention.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Now even though I think the whole process is broken: Can we please move 
forward as fast as possible. This endless messing around with the license is 
doing far more damage than any data loss or contributor loss due to the 
license change will ever do.

-- 
m.v.g.,
Cartinus