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

[Ed Avis]

Frederik Ramm <frederik at ...> writes:

>>If the new path for licence changes is well-thought-out and well-defined, why
>>are we not using it now?
>
>I would love to, however if today 2/3 agree to the license change, we 
>still need to get an OK from the remaining 1/3 to continue using their 
>data

Right!  And it would be much easier to get their agreement if you said 'there has
been a free and fair vote, and most people voted in favour of the change, so it
would be good for you to cooperate'... rather than 'we have already decided what
we want to do, now click Yes or be deleted from the project'.

>Also, there is no binding 
>definition on who is an active contributor (and thus has a right to 
>vote). So this procedure really is only possible *after* everyone has 
>signed up.

Indeed.  Surely the right thing to do, if we accept for the time being that
a centralized licensing model is the way forward, is to first sort out the
contributor terms and get general agreement, then have the discussion and vote
on whether to move to ODbL, dual-licensing, public domain or anything else.

-- 
Ed Avis <eda at waniasset.com>