[OSM-talk] OSM Licence vote

[Dave Stubbs]

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 9:19 PM, David Groom <reviews at pacific-rim.net> wrote:
> Sorry to be pedantic but the wording of the OSMF member vote is:
>
> Do you approve the process of moving OpenStreetMap to the ODbL?
> Yes, I approve.
> No, I do not approve.
>
> Unfortunately this sentence on which we are asked to vote has at least two
> meanings
>
> 1) Do you approve of the process? [as in the procedural method used]
>
> 2) Do you approve of the change.
>
> I presume the intention is it to mean (2), but the wording is much closer to
> (1).


I'm actually fairly sure it means (1) & (2). The LWG have put forward
a proposal of how OSM to move on wrt licensing, it's that proposal
we're voting on. That proposal includes what is to change (CC BY-SA ->
ODbL + Contrib Terms), as well as timetable and mechanism, including
basic wording of the question contributors will be required to agree
to.

>
> Ironically simply by definition of the poor wording it is unlikely I could
> agree to the process, irrespective of my actual views on CC-BY-SA v ODbL.

They are intimately linked. Saying we want ODbL without how we intend
to get there isn't so useful, and a lot of people wouldn't agree to
changing unless they knew how that change was to be implemented.
What it is about the process you don't want to agree to?

Dave