2010/7/19 SteveC <[email protected]>: > > On Jul 19, 2010, at 3:34 PM, John Smith wrote: > >> On 19 July 2010 23:19, Frederik Ramm <[email protected]> wrote: >>> And honestly, if at any future time two thirds of active OSM contributors >>> want to change to a non-SA license, why should we keep them from it? In one >>> or two years, "two thirds of active contributors" will be a greater number >>> of people than all of us today. Who are we to tell them what to do? We're >>> the minority ;) >> >> I wonder if you realise the fine line you are walking here by >> employing such hard line tactics, you are literally risking an out >> right rejection of ODBL because of this. How much time and effort will >> have been in vein exactly? > > I think you're overblowing the numbers here with 'risking a out right > rejection'. 200,000 people, or whatever, will be asked about the ODbL under > the plan, and there are about 20 people here slugging it out. From my > experience off list with all the people frustrated both in email and in > person, those 20 or so people here just don't represent everyone else who'd > prefer all this discussion to go to legal-talk and just move on with the > license.
Steve, can you instead of flaming back give me stright answer what do you think about suggestion I mentioned in the first post of this thread? Already thanks for answer, Cheers, Peter. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
