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

Peter Miller peter.miller at itoworld.com
Sat Jan 24 06:16:01 GMT 2009


On 24 Jan 2009, at 00:25, Frederik Ramm wrote:

> Hi,
>
>    thank you for making the December minutes available. From them I  
> see
> that you're already having your next meeting today.
>
> Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:
>> The licence doesn't get implemented if the vote is against its
>> implementation. If that were to happen then the licence would be  
>> back on the
>> drawing board and wholly open to the full discussion process again.  
>> We'd be
>> no further on but at least it would have been democratically agreed.
>
> Ah, so you're planning to hold a vote. That is a relief, it had not  
> come
> across so clearly until now. Who will be eligible to vote? What  
> process
> will be used and what outcome will be considered a "yes" outcome?
>
> I was under the impression that you'd just put the license up and say
> "agree to this or don't but we'll use it anyway and will have delete
> your data if you don't agree. We can talk later but first you have to
> agree". Which would of course have been hardly acceptable, hence my
> questions!
>
> Mikel's communication was a bit unclear in this respect. He said "We
> want to move ahead with this draft", and "In the immediate term, the  
> OSM
> community kick starts this process by first moving to the first  
> draft of
> the ODL license", without ever saying the word "vote" or contemplating
> the possibility that the community does not want to move to the  
> license
> as it is.
>
> So the plan is
>
> 1. let lawyers do their work
> 2. publish results
> 3. allow time for people to digest/discuss/understand but not revise  
> draft
> 5. hold vote on exact draft as published in 2.
> 6. if vote positive: implement license and ask mappers to sign up
> 7. if vote negative: back to the drawing board
>
> Is that correct? Mikel?

+1

Without a public vote the board are effectively saying to each and  
every one of use individually:  'accept these new terms or please  
leave the community now and don't slam the door - oh, and we will  
remove your data shortly'.  Clearly this approach will result in lots  
of people slamming doors!

There would be no evidence that the majority of the community agreed  
with the new license, and there were always be accusations of foul  
play from the inevitable splinter groups.

Note that Frederick is suggesting only a 'go/no go' vote without an  
option to change the document to avoid Steve's concern that we 'will  
open up a whole new round of consultation' - a concern that I can  
understand. This method elegantly puts clear responsibly on the board  
to produce a good license that stands up to scrutiny (which it should  
do) but it also gives the community as a group a say on whether we  
accept it.

To be clear, this must be a 'whole community' vote, not a vote by  
board members, or even just by foundation members.

I suggest a threshold is set for acceptance as it stands. If that  
threshold is not met then it isn't necessarily back to square one - it  
might be possible to come back again with a revised version that meets  
the concerns, but the clear aim is to get it adopted in one go.



Regards,



Peter


>
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> -- 
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09"  
> E008°23'33"
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk





More information about the legal-talk mailing list