[OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources

[Ed Avis]

Grant Slater <openstreetmap at ...> writes:

>If at some mythical future date the OSMF decided to propose a new
>license; they would have to be damn sure at being able to convince at
>least 67% of us that this new proposed license was "free and open" on
>our terms.

Well, 67% of 'active contributors' however defined.  The definition of active
contributor can probably be altered by the simple expedient of blocking
contributions from those who don't click 'agree' to any proposed new policy.

Of course the current OSMF management act in good faith and would never
do such a thing, but in theory it is possible.

-- 
Ed Avis <eda at waniasset.com>