[OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions

[Rob Myers]

On 09/02/2010 05:28 PM, David Groom wrote:
>
> Which, lets face it, is not the generally accepted idea of what a vote is.

If people were asking for a vote that would force the new licence on 
people without their permission I'd oppose that for both legal and 
ethical reasons.

I don't think that's what anyone is seriously asking for, though. And in 
the absence of such a vote, the reality is that the success or failure 
of relicencing will be a product of whether people decide to relicence 
or not.

> 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.

Most people don't care.

Of those that do care, some believe the OSMF's vote is representative, 
others don't like the result and have decided they want a plebiscite.

> 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?

If relicencing fails that's a problem. Given the stakes, that's as it 
should be. The fact that it's a possibility should tell us something 
about the process...

- Rob.