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

[Dermot McNally]

On Friday, 17 June 2011, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer <olaf at amen-online.de> wrote:

> Please note that the CT do not guarantee a 2/3 majority of the community. Only
> a part of the community is entitled to vote.

I read your other mail on that topic. I don't personally have any
objection to addressing weaknesses in the definition of "active
contributor". Given the likely slight impact on the outcome of any
vote I wouldn't even object to including a time-limited right to vote
for all past contributors (though see below), though we would need to
be careful then about whether we would require 66% of former
contributors to say yes or just 66% of those who ultimately cast a
vote. The former would become unworkable as more and more inactive
mappers became unreachable.

As to the definition of "former contributor" - in a post-CT-adoption
OSM that would probably mean excluding those never to have agreed to
the CT (in other words, restrict voting rights to those who still have
data in OSM). It remains to be seen whether the difference will prove
a significant one.

> Shortly after I wrote these words, a respected community member attacked me as
> being "blinded by ideology". He never apologised, and no one contradicted him.
> This personal attack is the main reason why I am now completely unwilling to
> accept the CT as long as I see peoblems in it.

With reference to Rob's reply on this issue, and assuming his quote to
be in-context (it certainly matches my recollection), I agree with his
interpretation. The quote does not attack you as "blinded by
ideology". As such, that post, which I also agree to be well-argued,
should have no bearing on your attitude to CT.

Dermot

-- 
--------------------------------------
Igaühel on siin oma laul
ja ma oma ei leiagi üles