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

[Peter Miller]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: legal-talk-bounces at openstreetmap.org [mailto:legal-talk-
> bounces at openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Richard Fairhurst
> Sent: 03 October 2008 13:58
> To: legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [Spam] Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Process for agreeing the new licence
> 
> 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.
> 

Great

> > 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.
> 

You are obviously more adept at reading machine code than me! Seriously, I
think that most potential users would find it hard to decode what the
current draft licence would mean for them, I do however agree that the legal
text should be as easy to understand as possible.

As such I think the twin document will be necessary, one paraphrases the
main points in a few words, the other is the legally binding contract and is
ideally 1 page or 1.5 pages max; however we can decide on whether we need
the summary as the process continues.


Peter


> cheers
> Richard
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk