[OSM-legal-talk] ODbL License + Outline Procedure

[Mike Collinson]

The suggestions re the Use Case page all sound good. Looking at the wiki history page, I assume but cannot absolutely guarentee that review has been made of the version extant 19th Jan (there were then no edits for a month).  I've grabbed a copy of that page and will insert the review comments into that as suggested. Give me till Sat.

Mike

At 12:52 PM 27/02/2009, Peter Miller wrote:

>On 27 Feb 2009, at 10:09, Grant Slater wrote:
>
>> The OSMF License Working Group is excited and pleased to announce the
>> completion of legal drafting and review by our legal counsel of the  
>> new
>> proposed license, the Open Database License Agreement (ODbL).
>>
>
>Thank you for your work to date; clearly a lot of work has gone into  
>this.
>
>We will now pass this information to our own legal people for review.  
>We will publish their response to the community as soon as it is  
>available. If we have any interim questions we will post those to the  
>list as well.
>
>I have a question about how we manage the Use Cases wiki page during  
>the consultation phase... The legal people have responded to one set  
>of Use Cases (excellent news indeed), however the wiki can be changed  
>at any time so the legal view will become out-of-date as the Use Case  
>text is updated.
>
>Can I suggest that a separate .pdf document is published which  
>contains the Use Case version that was actually consulted on and the  
>response from the legal people to that version? I suggest that we then  
>revert the Use Case wiki page to the version prior to the legal  
>comment being added and that we then update the text for the Use Cases  
>in response to this feedback we have received.
>
>We should then possibly seek a further review of any Use Cases where  
>the text has been altered (the WIki 'diff' feature will allow us to  
>identify which Use Cases have updated between the date that the legal  
>people took their initial version and the current version).
>
>I also suggest that we delete the ' A brief for the proposed SA  
>licence ' section of the Use Case page as that is now historical, it  
>may not actually reflect the license and is a distraction (note that I  
>was the main author of it, so no one should be offended by doing that!).
>
>
>Regards,
>
>
>
>Peter Miller
>ITO World Ltd
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>legal-talk mailing list
>legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk