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

[Anthony]

On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 3:15 AM, Francis Davey <fjmd1a at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

I think you've missed the part that read "to me".

> 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.

Right, well, I thought someone was going to respond with "of course
it's not 2/3 of all active contributors", so you've certainly
confirmed to me that this is unclear, as in can be interpreted by
non-lawyers in differing ways.

> 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.

That wouldn't make it any more clear to me.  Removing the "majority
vote" part would, though.

On the other hand, the response by Frederik points out another
ambiguity - what it means to "respond within 3 weeks" to an email.

Also, the idea that the "vote" could be conducted via email is rather
humorous.  Can't wait to see the dispute over the "hanging chads" in
that scenario.

> 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.

I mentioned it when I noticed it.