[OSM-legal-talk] Process for agreeing the new licence

[Richard Fairhurst]

Peter Miller wrote:

> I do understand that there is now finally energy within the Foundation to
> push this licence though. SteveC has said that he is on the case and that we
> should await further details which will be good to see and I do hope that
> there will soon be more indication on the list about this progress. I
> personally want to work with the Foundation to complete this work given that
> there is a lot to do and it shouldn't all be left to the Foundation
> directors. They are responsible for the work, but need help.

Agreed: indeed I met Andy last night and reiterated that I'm very  
happy to help with licensing issues if OSMF would like me to.

> I agree with the above sentiments; I don't want to reopen the debate,
> however I am not aware that there is a human-readable document describing
> what the licence should achieve as that is what I have written.
>
> Richard: Can I assume that you are in agreement with the 'brief brief' or do
> you want to suggest any changes?

It seems to tally with what I'd think, yes; but as I say, I'm happy  
with the revised (spring 2008) ODBL anyway so don't really need a  
summary or rewrite.

Jordan's approach to licence writing is to make the core licence  
"human-readable" anyway, and I'd agree that's a good approach to take  
(as opposed to the Creative Commons approach of having two documents,  
a human-readable summary and an impenetrable legal code). ODBL is  
admirably clear.

cheers
Richard