[OSM-legal-talk] Voluntary re-licansing and CT 1.1

[Jukka Rahkonen]

Ed Avis <eda at ...> writes:

> Perhaps there should be a meta-contributor-terms where you agree to 
> accept future
> contributor terms proposed by the OSMF.  Then there wouldn't be the need to
> re-ask everybody each time the contributor terms change.

Insurance companies would love this idea :) However, I consider that by 
accepting Contributor Terms the mapper makes a binding contract with 
OSMF and that can be changed only if both OSMF and mapper accept it. 
License can be changed later because that possibility is written in CT 
but not CTs.

Now we have perhaps 20 or 30 thousand contracts with CT 1.0 but apparently in 
the future contibutors will be asked to accept CT 1.1. What is the plan with 
those CT 1.0 mappers? Will they just continue to contribute under CT 1.0 or 
will they be asked to accept CT 1.1 before they can continue?  For me the 
changes between 1.0 and 1.1 look negligible but perhaps having both CT 1.0 
and CT 1.1 users could make things even more garbled.