On 8 August 2010 13:25, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote: > Isn't it going to present some complicated management problems if the LWG > changes the contributor terms at this stage in the process? There are > already some 30,000 accounts that have signed up to CT 1.0, if the next > batch agrees to a differently worded CT 1.1 then every future decision has > to take account of both these two groups and all those who are still on
The proposed version of the CT clause is "compatible" with the current version so no. I will really welcome such change and I'm also happy it was suggested to LWG by RichardF, who is already known to everyone in the LWG. The clause as it is now makes the CT incompatible with the ODbL itself (the proposed version still would be incompatible but mostly just due to the CC-By-SA provision, which would have little value after the switch). I can't imagine a realistic scenario where the CT "upgrade clause" would be able to help and the ODbL's upgrade clause can't help. Note that the CT can be "upgraded" by OSMF at any time as long they don't lock themselves out unable to release a planet file including old and new contributions together. Cheers _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
