[OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing "free and open license"

[80n]

On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 7:05 PM, SteveC <steve at asklater.com> wrote:

>
> On Jul 19, 2010, at 3:34 PM, John Smith wrote:
>
> > On 19 July 2010 23:19, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
> >> And honestly, if at any future time two thirds of active OSM
> contributors
> >> want to change to a non-SA license, why should we keep them from it? In
> one
> >> or two years, "two thirds of active contributors" will be a greater
> number
> >> of people than all of us today. Who are we to tell them what to do?
> We're
> >> the minority ;)
> >
> > I wonder if you realise the fine line you are walking here by
> > employing such hard line tactics, you are literally risking an out
> > right rejection of ODBL because of this. How much time and effort will
> > have been in vein exactly?
>
> I think you're overblowing the numbers here with 'risking a out right
> rejection'. 200,000 people, or whatever, will be asked about the ODbL under
> the plan, and there are about 20 people here slugging it out. From my
> experience off list with all the people frustrated both in email and in
> person, those 20 or so people here just don't represent everyone else who'd
> prefer all this discussion to go to legal-talk and just move on with the
> license.
>
> So why are you afraid of putting it to a vote?

Why have you felt the need to coerce 30,000 newbies by not giving them a
choice?  Not, even linking to the license that they are being asked to agree
to?

My experience off list is clearly different to yours.

80n






> Steve
>
> stevecoast.com
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20100719/ff8a563c/attachment.html>