On 28/03/2011 00:52, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Sorry that I come quite late with this, it might be too late, and it
was bothering me occasionally already for some months: if we really
decided in the future to change the license, isn't 3 weeks a little
short for such an important issue? I am referring to the time span
required for an active contributor to reply to an email from the
foundation. I feel this could be extended to say 6-8 weeks, because it
is not completely improbable that someone is not reachable for 3
weeks, and I don't see a need for such a hurry in a case important
like a license change (note we are now occupied with the current
license change and discussions for over 3 years).
Of course a potential new license change would most likely not appear
from nowhere, and implying a benevolent foundation this is maybe not
an issue, still for formal reasons I think this time span could be
extended.
Hi Martin,
The discussion we had when picking three weeks went something like this:
- In the case of a major license change, there would be a run up of at
least several months of publicity and discussion before the final formal
vote announcement.
- Our general objective in the CTs is to leave future generations as
much flexibility as possible while preserving overall project goals.
- The CTs do not stop such a formal announcement and vote opening to be
made much earlier. I certainly agree that 6-8 weeks is reasonable should
we ever go through a big change again.
- There may be ocassions when a small but vital change needs to be made
if a problem/loop-hole is found with the current license. Hence three
weeks ... two weeks for someone to be on holiday and one week for them
to get organised and vote.
I hope that makes sense.
Mike
License Working Group
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
