Hi tom, > The main reason is that otherwise it will effectively become impossible > to change the license because there will, over time, obviously be an > ever growing group of people who are no longer involved, interested > and/or contactable and once they become a majority the clause would in > effect become null and void because it would be impossible to exercise.
I have made many suggestions how this problem can be avoided. I have made two such suggestions in the very email you are replying to. > If that is your aim, to ensure that the license can never be changed > again, then fine - that is a perfectly respectable position to take. > > It would be dishonest to try and get that to happen via the back door > though, by supporting a vote but ensuring that it will in practice be > impossible. No, this is not my position. We do you suspect me of it? If you are not interested in trying to understand the problems both in the CT and in the behaviour of the sysadmins, then this is perfectly understandable. But it is dishonest to interpret a small part of my email in a way that directly contradicts the rest of my email. Olaf _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
