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

[Anthony]

On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
> When people collaborate on a film, for instance, they
> are making a collective effort, but they don't then allow a majority
> (or supermajority) to relicense the film under any license they deem
> appropriate.

And along those lines, if we don't believe in individual ownership,
why require a supermajority of 2/3 in order to change the license?
Why should 1/3+1 of contributors be able to dictate terms to 2/3-1?
If it's just a collective decision, to do whatever is best for the
collective, then the vote should be simple majority, not 2/3 majority.