On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 7:42 PM, James Livingston <li...@sunsetutopia.com>wrote:
> On 30/08/2010, at 10:03 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > > If the majority of the community (including OSMF and the sysads who run > the servers) agrees with the license change, 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. > > It all depends on what exactly you mean by the word "fork". You could very > well say that there is going to be a ODbL re-licensing fork, it's just that > the one hosted by OSM would change to be that fork rather than the existing > data. > I am not aware of any existing in-project fork. If there were "forks" in a technical/software sense, then that would be called a source code branch, and an in-project license "fork" might be called dual-licensing. A fork essentially means a splintering off a part of a project to assume a different direction *and* identity from the original project. When the Amarok project developers decided to rebuild the user interface and features from scratch from version 1.x to version 2.x, it's not called a fork because Amarok 2.x is still Amarok. People who complained and wanted the version 1.x features were forced to fork the codebase and start a new project with a different identity from Amarok.
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
