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

[Ed Avis]

Frederik Ramm <frederik at ...> writes:

>>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.
>
>Luckily we're now all signing up to the CT which will, for the first 
>time, establish a well-defined path for any future license change, so 
>the situation you complain about will be the last of its kind.

If the new path for licence changes is well-thought-out and well-defined, why
are we not using it now?  If future licence changes will require a 2/3 vote of
active contributors, then why not have such a vote for introducing ODbL?

I think that actions speak louder than words, and it doesn't work to keep saying
that licence changes in the future will be decided by the whole community, while
trying to push through a licence change now that isn't.

-- 
Ed Avis <eda at waniasset.com>