On 13.07.2010 11:31, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
It's not a vote.
And exactly that is the problem. Mappers didn't have a say in starting
the license change process, and they won't have a way to stop OSMF if
they decide that losing half of the data is acceptable.
> It's a request by the OpenStreetMap Foundation for you personally to
> consider relicensing your contributions. The only question you're
> being asked is "do you agree to relicense your contributions?".
There's only one step in the license change process where mappers hold
any power, and that's their personal agree/decline decision. Its obvious
that a passionate mapper will want to have a say in the license change,
and that's why they *will* use that decision to influence it. It's their
only tool to do so.
If there was a guarantee like "if we have to suffer a loss of more than
5% of the data, we will hold a vote among active contributors on how to
proceed", then a mapper could rationally separate the personal decision
to re-license from the attempt to influence the license change process.
I hate to get all meta, but there seems to be a lot more "fear of fear of
the ODbL" than "fear of the ODbL" (not to say the latter doesn't exist).
There is fear of the OSMF making a bad decision, and that's entirely
justified if you consider the refusal to provide *any* meaningful
indication of how that decision will look like.
Tobias Knerr
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
