Richard Weait wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Maarten Deen <md...@xs4all.nl> > wrote: >> Why is that 2/3 majority not sought for the current license move? > > Current respondents are far above 2/3 accepting the new license and > contributor terms. > It is kind of ironic that people who use the "accept the CT question" to "vote on the transition to ODBL" get told that this is not a vote if they think ODBL is the correct licence for OSM but that they should only indicate if they will accept that their personal contributions can be used under the CT or even get told that they are "poisonous people" for "withdrawing their old data" rather than just accepting and walking away from OSM if they don't agree with the licence, to later hear the argument that "X percent were in favor of the new license so there you have your majority vote".
These two questions are very different! 1) "Can and do you agree to relicence your personal contributions under the new CT, irrespective of what your own opinion is of what the best license is for OpenStreetMap" 2) "Do you think moving from CC-BY-SA to ODBL is in the best interest of OpenStreetMap as a whole, independent of if you can accept the CT for your personal contributions so far" These questions could and should have been kept separate and there is no technical reasons, why the 2/3 vote can not be applied to the current transition from CC-BY-SA to ODBL after people have agreed to the CT. But I am repeating my self... Kai -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Phase-4-and-what-it-means-tp6440812p6447563.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
