On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Richard Fairhurst <[email protected]>wrote:
> 80n wrote: > >> Isn't it going to present some complicated management problems if the >> LWG changes the contributor terms at this stage in the process? >> > > No, not in this case. The proposal is a subset of the powers currently > available to OSMF, not a superset. It is the existing CT _minus_ the option > of future relicensing (with a clarification on asserting rights in any > derivative database combined entirely of contributions by PD users). > > Therefore OSMF need not treat the two groups separately as long as it does > not exert the future licence change option for the 30,000 'CT 1.0' signups. > > Richard, that's very true in this case. But the LWG still needs a mandate to make this change. They can't do it just because Richard asked nicely. What's the mechanism by which they can make changes to the contributor terms? 80n
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
