On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 08:50:41PM +0000, Grant Slater wrote: > On 9 December 2010 10:01, pec...@gmail.com <pec...@gmail.com> wrote: > > About three or four months ago there was discussion about adding > > clarification about "free and open license", to add both share alike > > and attribution clauses. > > I don't think I'm being contrivertial when I say by far the majority > of us in the project are open data, open source and free software > advocates. To us 'Free' means libré & gratis and 'open' is being able > to get at the contents/source and spin one's own. > > If at some mythical future date the OSMF decided to propose a new > license; they would have to be damn sure at being able to convince at > least 67% of us that this new proposed license was "free and open" on > our terms.
If there’s any ambiguity, I’d rather remove as much of it as possible. This includes being precise about the possible licences, especially as “free” or “open” isn’t to my knowledge legally defined. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
