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

[80n]

On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:32 PM, Rob Myers <rob at robmyers.org> wrote:

> 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.
>
> There's only one undeniable fact in this whole affair.  Exactly 100% of all
contributors have signed up to CC-BY-SA and have indicated that they are
willing to contribute their data under that license.

That is a clear mandate for CC-BY-SA.  Where's the mandate for ODbL?  After
more than two years of license-twiddling they still don't have a clue how
much support there is.



> 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20100715/4b71e49a/attachment.html>