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

[John Smith]

On 16 July 2010 17:25, Simon Ward <simon at bleah.co.uk> wrote:
> 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?

The only catch-22 is forcing people to vote and agree to the new
license at the same time, why can't we agree/disagree and then vote to
accept the new license after we've had time to evaluate the fall out
from those unwilling or unable to agree?

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

I'm going to abstain until the process is amended so that I can make
an informed decision, the process is currently setup to obtain a
predetermined outcome, that is to force everyone over to the ODBL.

> 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?

I don't really see the point of this question, since it's already more
than obvious I'm bucking the trend...

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

For all intents and purposes it's lost...