[OSM-legal-talk] CT, section 3

Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org
Fri Nov 26 16:00:32 GMT 2010


Anthony,

    you seem to be missing context. I have re-added the quote from Mike 
to which I replied:

On 11/26/10 16:53, Anthony wrote:
>>> If you have a license, then make it closed, dont leave any loopholes
>>> or blank check rules in there that involve trusting some unknown set
>>> of people that can change at any time. Make simple rules and I will be
>>> happy.

>> How can we have the hubris to say "we know what's best
>> for OSM in 10 years"?

> Preserving the right to opt out of future changes doesn't say that.
> On the contrary, it is an expression of uncertainty over the future.

The above statement was about creating fixed licenses without any 
loopholes - Mike said we should do it, I replied it was a bad idea. This 
was not about opting out of future changes.

Bye
Frederik



More information about the legal-talk mailing list