On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> wrote:
> 80n, > > > On 12/07/10 10:08, 80n wrote: > >> So, the const-ness you're looking for is in fact there - just not on >> the level on which you are lookign for it. >> >> Not at all. A 2/3rds majority of *active* contributors can change the >> license under which everyone elses content is published. >> > > Yes. But no majority in the world can change the rules under which you will > have contributed your data (the contributor terms), even if you're long > dead. Your data will always be under these terms, which allow OSMF to choose > the license for redistribution providing they meet certain criteria that you > have agreed to. > > There is *no* way for OSMF to, for example, > > * license the data under a non-free or non-open license > * license the data under a license not agreed to by 2/3 of active > contributors > * change the definition of "active contributor" > > without asking you. These parameters of your agreement with OSMF are fixed > and cannot be changed without renegotiation with you personally. > > You would agree, however, that OSMF could change the license to one that is not share-alike? If you read the link I referenced about carpetbagging of UK mutual building societies, then you'll appreciate that the criteria for an active contributor is way to weak to be much of an impediment.
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
