On 22/08/2010 14:13, John F. Eldredge wrote:
My largest complaint is that, if you click "yes", you not only are agreeing to the current new license, but you are also agreeing in advance to any future license changes, without being able to know what those new license terms will be. It is the equivalent to voting someone into office as "President for life".
This is complete nonsense. Any further change would require a 2/3 majority of active contributors (as well as agreement from OSMF members).
This is considerably higher than most democratic countries require for a change of Government, which you might consider a significant event, and the same as most organisations set for making constitutional changes.
It stops people like Felix Hartman attempting to hold the majority to ransom by requiring a 100% vote and therefore effectively giving everyone a veto, while at the same time recognising a simple majority is not enough for more fundamental changes.
Are you saying you want a personal veto on any future change? Seems a massively selfish attitude for a supposedly co-operative project.
I've yet to find an organisation whose members don't disagree on things, but OSM does seem to have more than its fair share of people who set out to disagree with anything anyone else says for the sake of it.
Democracy isn't about unanimity. It never can be because it is never achievable.
David _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
