[OSM-legal-talk] Licensing Working Group report, 2009/01/22

Peter Miller peter.miller at itoworld.com
Sat Jan 24 06:04:08 GMT 2009


On 23 Jan 2009, at 14:30, Mikel Maron wrote:

> Thanks Peter.
>
> That's a good summation of the reasoning for an evolving license.
> And essential questions on the process. That process must be open  
> and engaging.
> There will be more details next week.

I am glad you like my summation. However, with respect we only ever  
get told what stage the process has got to, but we don't get any  
details about the license itself.

I try to ask very specific and what I consider are reasonable  
questions, and ones to which answers should be available however they  
just get passed over. The questions I asked this time were:

> Will it be possible for the key open elements of it to get removed? I
> don't know because I haven't seen the text.
>

I got no answer


> Who will be able to make changes? I don't know and I don't think the
> foundation knows either - they certainly haven't said

I got no answer. However I note from the December board meeting note  
(published today) that 'there is currently' no hosting option  
available other than the foundation', so there was an answer available  
to the question. For the record I could accept the foundation in this  
role, but only if serious improvements are made to its governance -  
which are changes we should be making anyway.

I have added these questions to 'open issues' so that I don't have the  
ask them again.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Open_Issues

Anyway Mikel, it a huge improvement that someone from the foundation  
posts on this list regularly at all - do keep it up!



Regards,


Peter



>


>
> Best,
> Mikel
>
>
> From: Peter Miller <peter.miller at itoworld.com>
> To: Licensing and other legal discussions. <legal-talk at openstreetmap.org 
> >
> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 11:36:47 PM
> Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing Working Group report,  
> 2009/01/22
>
>
> On 22 Jan 2009, at 23:05, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
>
> > 2009/1/22 Mikel Maron <mikel_maron at yahoo.com>:
> >> Hi Fredrik
> >>
> >>> Will they be available to process our input after we see the text?
> >>>
> >>> Is there any plan for how our feedback will be processed before  
> the
> >>> public is asked to accept the new license - will it be *our* job
> >>> to take
> >>> the lawyers' version and our feedback and make something suitable
> >>> from
> >>> it and then ask everyone to sign up, or will we collect our
> >>> feedback and
> >>> then again wait for the lawyers to respond?
> >>
> >> At the same time a first draft of the license is published, a
> >> community of
> >> users
> >> and legal experts will be established for discussion and refinement
> >> of the
> >> license.
> >>
> >> We want to move ahead with this draft of the license asap. The
> >> license won't
> >> be perfect,
> >> but there will definitely be a process for feedback and
> >> improvements, and
> >> the license
> >> will get there. In the immediate term, the OSM community kick
> >> starts this
> >> process
> >> by first moving to the first draft of the ODL license.
> >
> > By moving do you mean starting the relicensing already?  What if the
> > part that most people would like to veto is the one allowing the
> > passing of new versions without explicit agreement?
> >
> > I think this is why half of the world uses e.g. GPLv2 or GPLv3
> > licenses rather than GPLv3+ even though that's what GNU recommends.
> > AFAIK by having the actual data under the evolving license you  
> expose
> > it to the sum of all the loopholes present in any version of the
> > license as it evolved.
>
> I believe that it will be necessary for the license to be able to
> evolve within strict constraints without going back to all the
> contributors for approval because that would be impossible. Indeed it
> is already be impossible, but we have to live with that and we will
> loose content as a result. If one does not allow the license to evolve
> then surely it will not be able to adapt to new IPR laws and  
> situations?
>
> I am however very very interested in who will be able to change the
> license and how much?
>
> Will it be possible for the key open elements of it to get removed? I
> don't know because I haven't seen the text.
>
> Who will be able to make changes? I don't know and I don't think the
> foundation knows either - they certainly haven't said.
>
> Also, we are being told that there will be very open consultation no
> future changes to the license.
>
> Lets hope that Mikel's energy leads to better engagement in the
> process. Certainly it is a great improvement to have someone to talk
> to than nobody even if we still have a way to go.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > legal-talk mailing list
> > legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20090124/f72200ce/attachment.html>


More information about the legal-talk mailing list