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

[Rob Myers]

On 07/15/2010 10:37 PM, John Smith wrote:
> On 16 July 2010 00:48, Rob Myers<rob at robmyers.org>  wrote:
>> More than half. And within that more than half, the vote was overwhelming.
>
> Which is amusing, because it wouldn't have passed if few people that
> disagreed hadn't voted.

Counterfactuals don't affect the actual vote.

>> There was a clear majority of those that voted.
>
> Is this like mud, the more times you say it the more likely it is to stick?

We are discussing its relevance, not its truth.

If we are allowed to arbitrarily redefine how votes should be counted 
then, as I say, only 6.05% of the total possible electorate voted 
against relicencing.

>> People will be able to vote with their data once the voluntary relicencing
>> system is in place.
>
> Which is stupid, because if people are scared about the change they

The informal poll indicates that for the most part they are not.

> won't agree (not vote, agree) to relicense their data. Why are you
> against giving the contributors a vote exactly?

I am not opposed to giving the contributors a vote. They can vote with 
their data. That is the only practical and effective way for the 
community to express their will, and the OSMF vote that we are 
discussing enabled it to take place.

Giving the community a ballot vote would first be voted on by the OSMF. 
Then even if the community did vote to relicence, ****the voluntary 
relicencing system would still have to be used because OSMF cannot 
relicence the project as a whole like Wikimedia did****.

This means that the project might still not reach "critical mass" if 
people didn't choose to relicence. The outcome of the ballot(s) would be 
rendered void. Everyone's time would be wasted and the will of the 
community would be less clear than ever before.

- Rob.