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

Francis Davey fjmd1a at gmail.com
Tue Dec 14 08:15:33 GMT 2010


On 13 December 2010 22:46, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
> It's unclear to me whether a 2/3 majority of active contributors have
> to vote "yes", or merely 2/3 of some unspecified quorum of active
> contributors.
>

It is extremely unlikely that any English court would think so. The
phrase "a 2/3 majority vote of active contributors" would be
understood in its natural way, namely that 2/3 (or more) of all active
contributors must vote in favour of the change. If there was to be a
quorum then the terms would say so.

However changing "active contributors" to "all active contributors"
ought to dispel any shadow of a doubt on that point and does not read
unnaturally, so I'd suggest it as a change.

NB: we've been asked to suggest changes to the CT's if we think they
are unclear. I cannot remember whether you caught that.

-- 
Francis Davey



More information about the legal-talk mailing list