[OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

[John Smith]

On 5 January 2011 01:48, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
> No, that is not acceptable to me. Someone who participates in OSM must have
> the willingness to accept what the majority wants, or else they should not
> participate in the first place.

Ummm where is the majority of OSM contributors that want to switch to
CT/ODBL and in the process loose lots of map data?

So far I've only seen a minor-majority of OSM-F members agreed to some
kind of process that might lead to a license change, and a majority of
OSM-F board members agree to a license change.