On 07/14/2010 12:32 PM, Andy Allan wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 12:12 PM, 80n80n...@gmail.com wrote:
The correct way to re-license a project is to fork it.
I whole-heartedly disagree. Do you think that wikipedia should have
forked for their relicensing? Or Mozilla? They managed to find
On 15 July 2010 18:55, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
OSM has a clear mandate for the change. A majority (more than half) of the
electorate voted, and a clear majority of the votes were for the change.
Less than 49% of those eligible to vote, voted for the change, I don't
see this as a
80n wrote:
Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
80n wrote:
But the proponents of the ODbL don't have the courage to do
that. Instead they are trying to do it by attrition. First they
give newbies no choice. Eventually, they hope, the number
of newbies and new content will
On 07/15/2010 10:38 AM, John Smith wrote:
On 15 July 2010 18:55, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote:
OSM has a clear mandate for the change. A majority (more than half) of the
electorate voted, and a clear majority of the votes were for the change.
Less than 49% of those eligible to vote,
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010, Rob Myers wrote:
Given this, the facts are still that a majority voted and a clear
majority of the votes were in favour.
False
A majority of *contributors* have not voted, not even a majority of
contributors who edited anything in the last year.
Offering a vote to those
On 15/07/10 03:27, Liz wrote:
A majority of *contributors* have not voted, not even a majority of
contributors who edited anything in the last year.
Offering a vote to those who paid a fee in pounds or euros to belong to a
particular organisation (OSMF) and ignoring the far larger group who were
On 12/07/10 16:52, Liz wrote:
Now Gerv, what is your lower limit?
for
number of contributors overall?
number of active contributors
quantity of data?
I do not accept that a decision can be made without the numbers being set
*first*.
OK, let's say we do what you say. I define my limits, you
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Gervase Markham gerv-gm...@gerv.netwrote:
On 14/07/10 04:12, 80n wrote:
The correct way to re-license a project is to fork it.
What large body of people holds that opinion, such that you can be so
dogmatic?
The correct way to make any significant and
On 16 July 2010 01:05, Gervase Markham gerv-gm...@gerv.net wrote:
On this logic, almost no government in the world has a mandate to do
anything.
How many governments can change a constitution without less than 50%
voting, that's essentially what we're talking about here, not just
whether to
On 16 July 2010 01:15, Gervase Markham gerv-gm...@gerv.net wrote:
OK, let's say we do what you say. I define my limits, you define your
limits, every single member of the LWG defines theirs, lots of other
contributors do too. We now have a big pile of limits.
I've also come to the conclusion
On 16 July 2010 07:13, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
The correct way to make any significant and contentious change to a project
is to fork it. Significant changes that are not universally supported will
I'm not sure this would be doable, to do that you'd need twice the
amount of resources
On 07/15/2010 10:37 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 16 July 2010 00:48, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote:
More than half. And within that more than half, the vote was overwhelming.
Which is amusing, because it wouldn't have passed if few people that
disagreed hadn't voted.
Counterfactuals don't
Hi all,
I agree with Richard Weait: the community is more important than the
data. Although, as Simon Ward said Everyone has a say on whether their
contributions can be licensed under the new license., I am
uncomfortable with the ODbL process and I resent not being polled before
the license
On 16 July 2010 09:26, TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote:
My dream scenario is OSMF polls contributors with unbiased supporting
documentation, they abide by the result and then I work a PD fork (different
people and areas have different licensing situations). I might even license
my
14 matches
Mail list logo
