<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif;font-size:12pt">Peter,<br><br><div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;"><div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;"><div>> Possibly you could update timeline article to explain clearly how this license will be implemented, and then we can assist you with that process.</div><div><br>The plan is to work on the timeline at the next meeting.<br><br></div><div><div><br></div>> To be clear, I would expect that a number of people within OSM and the Foundation would review each draft of the license as produced by the lawyers. Can you say who sees each draft of <br>> the license who can confirm that it is heading in the right direction. </div><div><br>Wilson Sonsini and Jordan Hatcher are currently finishing the draft. We'll all have
access to it as soon as it's ready.<br></div><div><br><div><br>> This core issue still seems to be up in the air which is unfortunate. The organisation, if it is not the Foundation, needs to be highly trusted to make only suitable changes over the long term and <br>> maintain the viral elements of the license. I suggest that the Foundation should be the host unless there is an obvious alternative stable alternative.</div><div><br>Can't really say more about this at the moment. It's under discussion. However it ends up, the license must be in good hands, and maintained with all the spirit and intent of the license. That most certainly includes "viral" elements.<br><br></div><div>> If the foundation was the host, then we would need to appoint some really top-notch trustees to agree to any changes to the license, but I think we could now attract them. This would require <br>> changes to the articles of assoiciation, and possibly
require the foundation to gain charity status, but that is very possible and could happen in the next few months. I would be happy to advice <br>> you on this.</div><div><br>Well that's a much larger and interesting suggestion, I think beyond the scope of what we're talking about here right now.<br><br></div><br><div>> Can we not help on this draft and there does still seem to be a lot to do? Our lawyer should be able to review the license with a 48 hours response time against the Use Cases. We would be <br>> happy to pay for this and make the results available to the community.</div><br>It's nearly there. Let's just sit tight, let the Wilson Sonsini and Jordan Hatcher do their work over the next couple weeks.<br><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing:
normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><div><div style="margin: 0px; font-family: 'times new roman','new york',times,serif; font-size: 12pt;"><div style="margin: 0px; font-family: 'times new roman','new york',times,serif; font-size: 12pt;"><div style="margin: 0px; font-family: 'times new roman','new york',times,serif; font-size: 12pt;"><div style="margin: 0px;"><div style="margin: 0px;"><div style="margin: 0px;"><br>There will be thorough communications every step of the way. Might ask for some help from everyone on the wiki though, as there will be quite a lot to update there.<br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></span></blockquote><div><br></div><div>> I would be happy to help.</div><br>Great, that will be appreciated.<br><br>Best<br>Mikel<br><br></div><br></div></div></div></body></html>