On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Anthony <o...@inbox.org> wrote: > When people collaborate on a film, for instance, they > are making a collective effort, but they don't then allow a majority > (or supermajority) to relicense the film under any license they deem > appropriate.
And along those lines, if we don't believe in individual ownership, why require a supermajority of 2/3 in order to change the license? Why should 1/3+1 of contributors be able to dictate terms to 2/3-1? If it's just a collective decision, to do whatever is best for the collective, then the vote should be simple majority, not 2/3 majority. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
