[OSM-talk] OSM Licence vote
osm.list at randomjunk.co.uk
Mon Dec 7 09:37:37 GMT 2009
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 9:19 PM, David Groom <reviews at 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
> 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
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
> 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?
More information about the talk