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

[Simon Ward]

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 07:40:09AM +1000, John Smith wrote:
> On 16 July 2010 01:15, Gervase Markham <gerv-gmane at gerv.net> wrote:
> > OK, let's say we do what you say. I define my limits, you define your
> > limits, every single member of the LWG defines theirs, lots of other
> > contributors do too. We now have a big pile of limits.
> 
> I've also come to the conclusion that it's pointless to make an
> informed decision, what I want to see is the amount of data that will
> be lost, and then be asked if I agree with the change over or not.

Right, we haven’t got there yet.

The license change hasn’t really happened yet.  Only new contributors
will have their data dual licensed, and the existing contributors
haven’t seen the question yet.

Until we get the response from that, we don’t know how much data we will
“lose”[1], and that makes it a little difficult to provide the amount of
data lost to help contributors decide whether to agree.  Can’t you see
the catch‐22 here?

Please, just disagree or agree to the license and contributor terms on
principal.

Let me put this in a different context: OSMFCorp wants to relicense your
data under a non‐free, commercial license so they can make their board
of directors lots of money from license fees.  Say you’re not on the
board, you’re not even a member.  Would you agree to this just because
more than X% have already agreed?

[1] It’s not really lost, just not included in the project under the new
license.

Simon
-- 
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20100716/e269de97/attachment.pgp>