Dermot McNally wrote: > > FWIW I would have favoured earlier specific requests for a vote, but > it's basically been an impossible position for the LWG from what I can > see as an outsider. >
No, the vote part really isn't that difficult. Wikipedia managed to hold a vote on their licensing change. In fact the Contributor terms states a procedure to hold a vote for a licensing change. Just that LWG appears to have decides to apply those rules only for a future license change and not for the current one. (Which legally seems well within the current CTs) It would still be perfectly possible to follow the rules that are specified in the CT for a license change, for the current proposed change as well. Dermot McNally wrote: > > But mappers who just plain _won't_ agree to leave their data in, even > though there is no legal obstacle to it, should strongly consider > whether they are being true to the community they claim to be a part > of. > Until there is a clear vote of the community to determine what they want it is impossible to say which side of the debate is "true to the community". At the moment, we simply don't know. And so it is unhelpful to accuse long time OSM enthusiasts as not being "true to the community" because they disagree with your opinion. Many of them have the community just as much at hart as the proponents. They just disagree or are unsure on the effects this change will have on it. Kai -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OpenStreetMap-License-Change-Phase-3-Pre-Announcement-tp6266295p6278003.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
