Simon Ward <si...@...> writes: >I’d like to see all mandatory “agreements” to the CTs so far to be >disregarded, and mandatory agreement to the CTs be removed for new >sign‐ups. All users may fairly be informed about the licensing options, >and where they can indicate their preference. At this point we >determine what the level of support for the licence+CT change is, and if >and only if we have overall support for the licence+CT change we change >the sign up terms to reflect it.
See the LWG minutes from October 26th <https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_89cczk73gk>: >- Referendum proposal. We are still not going to firmly reject/accept yet but >are doing nothing active to organise it. Our position remains that it does not >cleary help us change the license. This appears to say that the important thing is to change the licence - which has already been decided - and what matters is to push that through. So a vote is unlikely to be held unless it is sure to produce the outcome the LWG wants! I agree with you that the OSMF should remain strictly even-handed in this, not favouring one side or the other ('we are changing the licence', 'please follow this link to review and accept the new contributor terms'), and the right order is to first find out what support there is for the licence+CT proposal (as well as other proposals such as public domain, which have never had a fair hearing) and only then make the decision. I also agree that the OSMF have confused 'supporting the process' with 'supporting the licence change'. -- Ed Avis <e...@waniasset.com> _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
