Francis Davey <fjm...@...> writes: > > On 13 December 2010 22:46, Anthony <o...@...> wrote: > > It's unclear to me whether a 2/3 majority of active contributors have > > to vote "yes", or merely 2/3 of some unspecified quorum of active > > contributors. > > > > It is extremely unlikely that any English court would think so. The > phrase "a 2/3 majority vote of active contributors" would be > understood in its natural way, namely that 2/3 (or more) of all active > contributors must vote in favour of the change. If there was to be a > quorum then the terms would say so.
I do not really believe that the turnout percentage in any OSM poll would reach 66.7 percent, even if we count just the active contributors. It is nowadays a good percentage even in the election of the parliament. In year 2007 in Finland the turnout seemed to be 67.9%. And because all active contributors for sure would not vote for "Yes" it would mean in practice that OSM license could never be changed. Myself I have been thinking that the 2/3 majority means the share of those who vote. Obviously it would be better to write it clearly into the CTs how we want it to be interpreted and not to ask it afterwards from any English court. -Jukka Rahkonen- _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
