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

[Anthony]

On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Francis Davey <fjmd1a at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12 December 2010 14:08, Robert Kaiser <kairo at kairo.at> wrote:
>>
>> If "67%" is not clear in legalese, then legalese is stupid, IMHO. Let's
>> abolish all legal rules and make contributing fun instead, then.
>>
>
> There's no such thing as "legalese" as I've said before. The CT's
> don't say "67%" they say "2/3", which is completely clear. The phrase
> "at least a 2/3 majority vote" has a pretty clear and unambiguous
> meaning.

It's not clear what the denominator is supposed to be.