[OSM-legal-talk] CT, time period for reply to a new license change (active contributor)

[Michael Collinson]

On 28/03/2011 00:52, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Sorry that I come quite late with this, it might be too late, and it
> was bothering me occasionally already for some months: if we really
> decided in the future to change the license, isn't 3 weeks a little
> short for such an important issue? I am referring to the time span
> required for an active contributor to reply to an email from the
> foundation. I feel this could be extended to say 6-8 weeks, because it
> is not completely improbable that someone is not reachable for 3
> weeks, and I don't see a need for such a hurry in a case important
> like a license change (note we are now occupied with the current
> license change and discussions for over 3 years).
>
> Of course a potential new license change would most likely not appear
> from nowhere, and implying a benevolent foundation this is maybe not
> an issue, still for formal reasons I think this time span could be
> extended.
>    
Hi Martin,

The discussion we had when picking three weeks went something like this:

- In the case of a major license change, there would be a run up of at 
least several months of publicity and discussion before the final formal 
vote announcement.

- Our general objective in the CTs is to leave future generations as 
much flexibility as possible while preserving overall project goals.

- The CTs do not stop such a formal announcement and vote opening to be 
made much earlier. I certainly agree that 6-8 weeks is reasonable should 
we ever go through a big change again.

- There may be ocassions when a small but vital change needs to be made 
if a problem/loop-hole is found with the current license. Hence three 
weeks ... two weeks for someone to be on holiday and one week for them 
to get organised and vote.

I hope that makes sense.

Mike
License Working Group