[OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass

[80n]

On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Andy Allan <gravitystorm at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 1:32 PM, 80n <80n80n at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The problem is there's no time limit either.  The process can be allowed
> to
> > drag on for another 5 years if necessary.
>
> That's not quite true, and I think you know that. The OSMF isn't
> exactly likely to have this phase of the relicensing simply dragging
> on - to start suggesting that it would isn't helpful and is another
> "fear of the fear of ODbL" thing.
>
> > All the time that there is uncertaintly about the license it is harming
> the
> > project.  Deterring potential contributors and confusing prospective
> users.
> > How much longer should this be allowed to continue?
>
> I think "allowed to continue" is the wrong phrase. Perhaps "what can I
> do to help speed things up?" would be better. Maybe working on (more)
> documentation and outreach, or finding out what the holdup is with
> allowing existing contributors to choose to relicense and offering to
> help with that. I know I'm itching to be allowed to indicate my
> preference, and I know that there's already something like 30,000
> newbies who have agreed already.
>
>
The correct way to re-license a project is to fork it.  But the proponents
of the ODbL don't have the courage to do that.  Instead they are trying to
do it by attrition.  First they give newbies no choice.  Eventually, they
hope, the number of newbies and new content will be overwhelming.

If they had any guts they'd have forked the project.  And they don't have
the guts to put it to a straight vote either.  With no deadline there's
never a point at which anyone can say they failed.

How much time is needed?  Everything is in place, the LWG has had several
years to prepare.  If there isn't a clear majority by September 1st then I'd
say the relicensing has failed.

80n
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20100714/590505ea/attachment.html>