80n wrote: > I helped design the strategy. The problem statement was "how are we > going to change the license when half the contributors won't respond, > some will refuse and some are even dead". The solution, it was my > suggestion, was to use attrition. Only permit new users to sign up > to the new license terms. Eventally new contributions will outnumber > the old. > > This decision was made in a meeting between four people: myself, > Steve Coast, Richard Fairhurst and Mike Collinson and is clearly > documented here: > http://www.osmfoundation.org/images/e/e3/Osmf_boardminutes_20080320.pdf
I dispute that entirely. My clear recollection of it is that we decided to ask new contributors to agree to ODbL+CT with the intention of restricting the task to its then level. In other words, "let's ask 10,000 users to relicense their work" is a lot easier than "let's ask 12,000 users to relicense their work". Or, as it says in the minutes, "to reduce the task of any licence change by getting new signups from now on to sign up to both the existing and the new licence". Steve has also said this was his understanding. I did not vote for "let's wait until there are enough users to outnumber the 10,000", which is what you're now claiming. If that was your intention, you didn't communicate it to me. Nor would I have supported it because, as I've said repeatedly over the past few years, only the rights holder has the ability to relicense their own work. Whether a majority of other contributors agree is irrelevant. (This is one of the reasons I'm not greatly enamoured of the upgrade clause in CT 3.) Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Contributor-Terms-tp5415290p5419355.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
