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

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 7:42 PM, James Livingston <lists at sunsetutopia.com>wrote:

> On 30/08/2010, at 10:03 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
> > If the majority of the community (including OSMF and the sysads who run
> the servers) agrees with the license change, 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.
>
> It all depends on what exactly you mean by the word "fork". You could very
> well say that there is going to be a ODbL re-licensing fork, it's just that
> the one hosted by OSM would change to be that fork rather than the existing
> data.
>


I am not aware of any existing in-project fork. If there were "forks" in a
technical/software sense, then that would be called a source code branch,
and an in-project license "fork" might be called dual-licensing. A fork
essentially means a splintering off a part of a project to assume a
different direction *and* identity from the original project.

When the Amarok project developers decided to rebuild the user interface and
features from scratch from version 1.x to version 2.x, it's not called a
fork because Amarok 2.x is still Amarok. People who complained and wanted
the version 1.x features were forced to fork the codebase and start a new
project with a different identity from Amarok.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20100830/1c03f36e/attachment.html>