[OSM-legal-talk] Licence brief/Use Case - final callfor comments
peter.miller at itoworld.com
Wed Oct 15 12:00:27 BST 2008
> -----Original Message-----
> From: legal-talk-bounces at openstreetmap.org [mailto:legal-talk-
> bounces at openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Simon Ward
> Sent: 14 October 2008 23:48
> To: legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [Spam] Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licence brief/Use Case - final
> callfor comments
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 01:36:39PM +0100, Peter Miller wrote:
> > I was really signalling that I had got the Brief and Use Cases into a
> > where I was happy with them and where I thought they covered the issues
> > raised but needed confirmation re that from others.
> The way you phrased it made it sound "final" even if it wasn't. May I
> suggest that if you have a timetable for working out your brief that you
> publish it, _before_ telling people their time is up?
Let's just say that I am pretty much done on the Brief and Use Cases, and
SteveC has confirmed that he is meeting the new lawyer pretty soon and he
also mentioned that he will be using Use Cases in his brief to the lawyer
(and hopefully something like the proposed Brief as well but he hasn't
confirmed that to me or the list) and so it would be good to have any
concerns about the proposed User Cases raised before that un-specified date.
My experience is that setting a 'deadline' is a good way to get feedback,
even if the deadline it actually turns out not to be a deadline.
Without knowing what the actual date is (and I don't think SteveC knows that
yet) I suggest we work to our own timetable. If anyone wants to suggest a
better cut-off date then fire away, possibly Monday would give people more
time to respond because clearly no one is going to be talking to lawyers
over the weekend (that's really expensive!).
Let's not just let time slip by. As the saying goes 'Q: How did this
project get a year late? A: One day at a time sir!)
> A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
> simple system that works.-John Gall
More information about the legal-talk