[OSM-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment

[Tom Hughes]

On 11/07/11 09:35, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer wrote:
> Hi tom,
>
>> The main reason is that otherwise it will effectively become impossible
>> to change the license because there will, over time, obviously be an
>> ever growing group of people who are no longer involved, interested
>> and/or contactable and once they become a majority the clause would in
>> effect become null and void because it would be impossible to exercise.
>
> I have made many suggestions how this problem can be avoided. I have made two
> such suggestions in the very email you are replying to.

Those suggestions were about changing the definition of an active 
mapper, not about doing away with the requirement for being active.

I have no problem with suggestions for changing the definition of an 
active mapper, though I personally don't think the current definition is 
a major problem and I also think that most of your attempts to show how 
that will disenfranchise people are very contrived and unlikely to be a 
significant issue in reality.

I'm not the person you need to convince about that though anyway.

I was simply trying to explain why that one specific point of yours, 
that you don't think voting rights should be limited to active 
contributors, was IMHO a bad idea.

Tom

-- 
Tom Hughes (tom at compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/