On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 9:19 PM, David Groom <revi...@pacific-rim.net> wrote: > Sorry to be pedantic but the wording of the OSMF member vote is: > > Do you approve the process of moving OpenStreetMap to the ODbL? > Yes, I approve. > No, I do not approve. > > Unfortunately this sentence on which we are asked to vote has at least two > meanings > > 1) Do you approve of the process? [as in the procedural method used] > > 2) Do you approve of the change. > > I presume the intention is it to mean (2), but the wording is much closer to > (1).
I'm actually fairly sure it means (1) & (2). The LWG have put forward a proposal of how OSM to move on wrt licensing, it's that proposal we're voting on. That proposal includes what is to change (CC BY-SA -> ODbL + Contrib Terms), as well as timetable and mechanism, including basic wording of the question contributors will be required to agree to. > > Ironically simply by definition of the poor wording it is unlikely I could > agree to the process, irrespective of my actual views on CC-BY-SA v ODbL. They are intimately linked. Saying we want ODbL without how we intend to get there isn't so useful, and a lot of people wouldn't agree to changing unless they knew how that change was to be implemented. What it is about the process you don't want to agree to? Dave _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
