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

[Dirk-Lüder Kreie]

Am 20.07.2010 22:06, schrieb 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)

Well you'll get a say with or without the SA-Clause in the CT, provided
you stay interested enough to keep actively mapping to be eligible to
vote on future changes to another "free and open" license.

I fail to see your problem. There will always be the safeguard of active
member vote plus the limit of "free and open", which, both combined
provide a nice safeguard against "evil stuff".

-- 
Dirk-Lüder "Deelkar" Kreie
Bremen - 53.0901°N 8.7868°E

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20100721/b73a51f4/attachment.pgp>