Peter Miller wrote: > There is huge difference between the majority being ask one > by one to 'relicense or leave now', and one where we are > asked if we support it and then later being asked to accept > the majority verdict (which is very likely to be in favour > of re-licensing).
On reflection, I think having a community-wide "indicative" vote first, and a "do you agree to relicense?" process afterwards, would do much more harm than good. The 99% of people who don't subscribe to legal-talk simply won't understand it. They will vote on the first one, then get mails about the second one, think "oh, I've done this", and ignore it. Now you can say that we will explain the difference fully in the e-mail, and that's a nice idea, but as the poor unfortunate responsible for writing the Potlatch splash screen, I can tell you that OSM contributors do not read anything put in front of them. Even if it is in flashing 72pt red/pink text and uses the AS3 extended API to punch the user in the nose. I think TomH would tell you the same story about the messaging system e-mails, which say PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE in four different languages with a nice border of stars, and yet which people still ignore. By all means have an optional _poll_ beforehand among people who care. Maybe put something on talk@, the user diaries, the forum and OpenGeoData to gauge people's views; add a little box on the LH of the main page in the same way as the SOTM ad that appears there. Give people the chance to express their views if they care. But a compulsory whole-community vote will just confuse the matter. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Licensing-Working-Group-report%2C-2009-01-22-tp21611753p21651101.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
