<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">> Here is an excerpt from the recent board
meeting minutes:<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;"><font face="Trebuchet MS">
> <br>> "* How to handle potential forks (mail of TimSC)<br>
> Board hands this issue to the strategic working group with the
guideline to keep the data under the primary license."<br>
> <br>
> I think it is clear that with the effort put in the license change
the idea to handle a fork under the umbrella of the OSMF is not
capable of winning a <br>> majority within the OSMF. Otherwise it would
make more sense to establish an ODbL fork rather than changing the
license of the primary database.<br>
<br>I think our first step with many issues facing OSMF, is for this working group to evaluate possible activities against the objectives/mission of OSMF, and the community which OSM represents. One of the real services we can provide on contentious issues is fully sketching out the various positions, in a unbiased and representative way, without necessarily needing to resolve the issues.<br><br>In some cases, working through things in a strategic process can lead to recommendations for the Board. In this case, I think we've been given clear direction to document, but not decide, this issue of forking.<br><br>Forking has been well explored on the lists, and here. If someone could give a neutral account in the wiki, that would be a good contribution.<br><br>-Mikel<br>
</font>
</div></div>
</div></body></html>