On 25 August 2010 10:23, Kevin Peat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 25 August 2010 08:41, Frederik Ramm <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> It is bad enough if the share-alike minority force their will on the rest >> of the project now; we must not allow them to force their will on everybody >> who is in OSM in 10 years' time. >> >> > I find this oft-repeated argument to be totally bogus. It's like saying > that I shouldn't paint my house because the person who owns it in 10 years > time might not like it. > > If OSMers in 2020 don't like the license they are free to change it or to > start a new project just as people are today. We should make a decision on > what seems like the best choice as we see it today not what someone may want > in 10 years time. > > I am quite happy for OSMF to have the power to upgrade to newer versions of > ODBL as the license matures to save all this hassle again but there should > be some sensible limits on what the OSMF can do otherwise it is open to > abuse. >
I believe that an agreement of 2/3 of active contributors and a vote of the OSMF members is quite a nice garantee. John mentioned that someone could just create lots of account, but honestly I suspect that kind of behavior would be caught quite easily and dealt with accordingly. If I was to detect, I would no doubt seize the board to see how to exclude those and make sure that we have a fair vote. This is really to empower the community in the end, not to try to shaft it. Emilie Laffray
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
