[OSM-legal-talk] SOTM legal talks

Martijn van Exel mvexel at gmail.com
Tue May 12 20:19:09 BST 2009

I believe we should. My initial thought was to focus on a discussion,
but thinking about it more I believe an introduction of sorts by
someone in the legal WG would make it more powerful.

martijn van exel -+- mvexel at gmail.com -+- http://www.schaaltreinen.nl/

On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 21:12, SteveC <steve at asklater.com> wrote:
> On 12 May 2009, at 12:02, Martijn van Exel wrote:
>> My thoughts:
>> I think a debate of some kind will be preferable over a one-sided
>> presentation of the state of affairs or even the process.
> it's not an either-or, we can do both :-)
>> This has
>> been a hotly debated topic over the last period, I believe some format
>> involving the audience is therefore called for.
>> If we're going to involve Rufus and Jordan, 1hr might not even be
>> enough time. It is complicated business we're dealing with and most in
>> the audience will need some introduction (say 20 or even 30mins).
>> Someone in the legal WG explaining:
>> * Key differences between current and envisaged license.
>> * Key arguments for changing over
>> * Timeline: where are we, where will we be 3m, 6m, 1y from now
>> * What can you do? What is expected of you?
>> I know most of these topics have been dealt with extensively on the
>> lists and on the wiki, but if we want a lively debate involving the
>> audience, we will require this refresher course.
>> That would leave about 30-40mins for a debate. That can only work if
>> we have good moderation around a couple of well chosen topic, I think
>> no more than three, allowing 10-15 mins per topic.
>> If we plan this before lunch or at the end of the day (I'd prefer the
>> former, a heavyweight topic at the end of the day will not go down
>> well) we can have informal discussion afterwards.
>> Take care,
>> martijn van exel -+- mvexel at gmail.com -+- http://www.schaaltreinen.nl/
>> On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 01:24, SteveC <steve at asklater.com> wrote:
>>> Hi
>>> We, the legal working group have been asked as a result of a chat in
>>> the SOTM working group call (which mike and I were also on) to
>>> propose
>>> talk(s) about the license at SOTM.
>>> Today in our call we brainstormed a little around a few ideas and we
>>> thought it would be good to flesh them out here and see what you guys
>>> think might work, or not. So here are some ideas to think around, or
>>> if you have your own please chime in. We can do these, some
>>> combination, all of them, or whatever. We'd like your help in
>>> thinking
>>> what the best things to do are
>>> 1) A high level, simple, talk for the business day on rough use cases
>>> on the data and best practise. Something like "you can use OSM data
>>> but make sure you don't mix it with proprietary data, make sure you
>>> attribute OSM". This wouldn't be a perfect talk, but would give
>>> businesses and people looking to get involved with OSM a high level
>>> introduction without getting too scary
>>> 2) A talk at the main OSM conf days about the PROCESS of the legal
>>> working group. How often we meet, who we are, how a meeting goes,
>>> what
>>> we discuss, who we talk to, what the minutes look like, how to get
>>> involved... This is just about how we work, not the subject matter to
>>> give people a better insight in to what goes on.
>>> 3) A debate at the main OSM conf. A panel of key members of the
>>> license working group plus jordan and rufus. It lasts an hour. 15
>>> minutes are brief introductions and points of view from the panel
>>> members and then 45 minutes of open debate on any license issue
>>> with a
>>> moderator. This might be before lunch or a break so people can
>>> continue discussing afterward.
>>> 4) The same as (3) but with a _structured_ debate. Say 4 main topics
>>> and 10 minutes debate on each, or 3 topics of 15 minutes each.
>>> Something like that so that rather than debate about anything we
>>> debate some key issues to make sure they are covered.
>>> Remember these are only ideas to be discussed here, not our solid
>>> plans. Thoughts?
>>> Best
>>> Steve
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
> Best
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

More information about the legal-talk mailing list