[OSM-legal-talk] Upgrading to future ODbL version

[Simon Ward]

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 08:58:31PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Notice the absence of any "or later" clause here. This means that if
> ODbL 1.1 comes out, it will not be usable out of the box, but we
> would have to go through the whole "2/3 of active members have to
> accept" poll to upgrade.

I don’t see the issue with this.  A new ODbL could quite drastically
change the way it works.  Don’t be fooled by a point release—people can
version things in any way they please.

I’m a little biased: I think that the contributor terms for possible
future license changes are unnecessary, and that OSM should seek
permission from all rights holders for any license change.  Getting
people to agree to a “we can change it even though you don’t agree
because we have a 2/3 majority” is just a little bit sneaky in my
opinion.

It comes back to the fear of losing stuff that if the rights holders
don’t really agree OSM has no rights to anyway.

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/20100717/90013253/attachment.pgp>