On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 1:27 PM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com < jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 2:03 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar <sea...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > ...why should the onus of forking be > > on the license-change agreers? If this is indeed the case, then the ones > who > > should fork are those for CC-BY-SA 2.0. > > > because the license change is not going to work in the first try. > Technically you need a beta test phase. > never change a running system. Get it running first, dont break what > we have already. > > mike > What you said doesn't require a fork in the normal sense of that word (which implies splitting off part of the community and not using the original name: OpenStreetMap). If majority of the OSM community favors changing the license, then that project on the new license is still OpenStreetMap. It's definitely not a fork at all.
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
