[OSM-legal-talk] Licence Implementation plan - declines or non-responses

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 1:27 PM, jamesmikedupont at googlemail.com <
jamesmikedupont at googlemail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 2:03 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar <seav80 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > ...why should the onus of forking be
> > on the license-change agreers? If this is indeed the case, then the ones
> who
> > should fork are those for CC-BY-SA 2.0.
> >
> because the license change is not going to work in the first try.
> Technically you need a beta test phase.
> never change a running system. Get it running first, dont break what
> we have already.
>
> mike
>


What you said doesn't require a fork in the normal sense of that word (which
implies splitting off part of the community and not using the original name:
OpenStreetMap). If majority of the OSM community favors changing the
license, then that project on the new license is still OpenStreetMap. It's
definitely not a fork at all.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20100830/11901fdb/attachment-0001.html>