[OSM-legal-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference (from osm-talk)

[SteveC]

On Nov 25, 2010, at 4:09 PM, Grant Slater wrote:

> John,
> 
> On 25 November 2010 20:15, john whelan <jwhelan0112 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Just a comment from one of the 130 who has voted yes on the recommendation
>> of one of the people I thought was fairly sensible here and I now regret
>> taking his advice.  I now strongly suspect I should have spent six months
>> wading through through the legal talk side of things rather than mapping
>> because a whole slew of issues seem to be coming up here.
>> 
> 
> ~4800 existing users have agreed to the Contributor Terms, this
> excludes the new OSM signups.
> Or are you discussing the foundation members vote?
> 
>> I would like the ability to go back and change my vote.
>> 
>> I don't like being told this is not the place for discussion of license
>> issues or concerns.  In light of the recent involvement of Microsoft and
>> other large players I think there are perception problems that need to be
>> addressed.
>> 
> 
> Microsoft/Bing has spoken to the Licensing Working Group on 2
> occasions. I flagged these up in the minutes. MapQuest has not spoken
> to the Licensing Grouping Group.
> 
>> For example I'm very concerned that there is no plan to deal with the
>> transition to the new licensing model.
>> 
> 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan
> If you would like expansion on the items ask.
> 
>> Perhaps OSM should take note of the Open Data mob and be a little more open
>> about what is happening rather than trying to censure discussion on issues
>> and concerns which apparently have not been addressed by the decision
>> makers.  They seem to have taken decisions but won't accept any
>> responsibility to address issues and concerns.  I'm not asking to stay with
>> the old licenses necessarily but I would like to see some sort of plan and
>> if we can find a way to address the issues and concerns.
>> 
> 
> Censure discussion? Please expand. Moving licensing discussion to a
> dedicated public list is not censure in my view.
> 
> There have been many round of question, answers and many revisions.
> The LWG spends at around 25% of their time just keeping minutes. I'm a
> member of the LWG, we are all volenteers with the exception of
> occasional member Steve Coast.

Er... what makes you think I'm not a volunteer? :-)

> Full minutes: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes
> 
> Regards
> Grant
> 
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
> 

Steve

stevecoast.com