[OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM

[Richard Fairhurst]

Tim Waters (chippy) wrote:

> On 10/11/08, Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemed.net> wrote:
>> Sure, I wouldn't dispute that it's healthy. I would just observe that
>>  perceived failings may actually not have been failings for several
>>  months. As I said it would be good, very good indeed, to get the new
>>  licence published - a lot of this has already been addressed, and
>>  thus it's ultimately wasted effort which could productively be spent
>>  on finding the failings with the _current_ draft.
>
> So do we have the new licence? Do we have the current draft?
>
> Where has this been addressed? What has been the results?
>
> How is what we are talking about "wasted effort"?
>
> Are you saying we shouldn't discuss things until we see the current  
> licence?
> Isn't this what was happening before this discussion started? People
> saying "oh, who knows! It's all up in the air!"
>
> Do we, as a community, by discussing these things, have no influence
> on the direction of the future of OSM?
>
> Has everything been decided already by the OSMF?

Goodness me, that's an enormously confrontational-sounding posting,  
and, er, utterly wrong to boot. I thought I'd made it clear, but in  
nice bullet points (remembering that I am no longer on OSMF, because  
I didn't have the time it merited, and I didn't want to continue  
slowing down the fine bunch of people who are on it):

* I would like OSMF to publish the current licence
* I say 'wasted effort' only because I know things are being agonised  
over which _have_ already been sorted (by Steve, Andy and me when  
working with Jordan last year)
* This is why I would like OSMF to publish the licence, so that  
people can apply their minds to the things that still need sorting,  
not to the things that have already been sorted
* I am not saying "you shouldn't discuss things", or "we as a  
community have no influence", or anyt of that, I am saying OSMF  
should publish the licence
* IMHO OSMF should publish the licence

cheers
Richard

P.S. did I mention something about publishing the licence?