[OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions

David Groom reviews at pacific-rim.net
Thu Sep 2 17:28:43 BST 2010



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rob Myers" <rob at robmyers.org>
To: <legal-talk at openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 4:40 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions


>
> On 09/02/2010 04:16 PM, Maarten Deen wrote:
>> There was some
>> discussion on how the group wanting to move should be measured, by
>> number of people, by number of edits/contributions possibly only
>> measured over a certain period, but AFAIK no consensus has been reached
>> there.
>
> The idea is that people will "vote with their feet" by agreeing or not to 
> the new terms. However many votes OSM has or does not have, that is the 
> only measure that will count in the end.
>

Which, lets face it, is not the generally accepted idea of what a vote is.

Most people, I believe, would think that the idea of a vote is asking the 
contributors "do you think something should happen", yes or no, then if the 
answer is yes proceeding with the course of action.

What you are saying is that the "vote" is proceeding with the course of 
action, and if people don't like it they can leave the project. This is not 
the same as the above paragraph.

Not only is it not the same but it begs the question of what happens if such 
a large percentage of the contributors don't agree the CT's.  Do you then go 
back to those that have agreed them and ask them to agree to the old terms?

David

>> If that is consensus to you... Let's put it this way: if that is
>> consensus to the people wanting the move and the people in charge of the
>> license that governs OSM, then I guess the license move is imminent and
>> undebatable.
>
> Relicencing is the result of a public process that was started some years 
> ago. The move should be imminent (some people are complaining it is taking 
> too long) but it is not a foregone conclusion (nobody can be *forced* to 
> relicence) and constructive questions about the CTs and the process are 
> being taken on board as far as I can tell.
>
> - Rob.
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
> 







More information about the legal-talk mailing list