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

[andrzej zaborowski]

On 20 July 2010 11:07, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
> 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?

Because each of us is an author of a little chunk of data and want to
have a say in how that chunk is released? (For example as a
share-alike fan I want my own personal mapping to influence those who
derive from it to release more data so we can all benefit)

Cheers