[OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
simon at poole.ch
Mon Aug 15 22:39:46 BST 2011
Nobody has claimed that everything leading up to the license changed was
handled perfectly, with hindsight I would suspect that a couple of
have been handled differently by everybody involved.
But I have not seen anything that would indicate that the outcome of
any such better (from a formal point of view) process would have been
different than what we got from what actually happened (ok, naturally
we would now be arguing over what a valid contributor vote should have
been 4 years ago, but it would still be arguing over process, not the
Could we, just perhaps, at last get over the continuous bickering about
that transpired a long time ago and move on?
With other words: please get a life.
Am 15.08.2011 23:15, schrieb Florian Lohoff:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 04:45:41PM -0400, Anthony wrote:
>> So what's the problem? You don't want to grant OSMF the right to
>> relicense. OSMF doesn't want your edits without the right to
>> relicense them.
>> Why do you want to force your edits, *which they don't want*, upon them?
> I have a problem with the OSMF saying it represents OSM. But at
> least it does not represent me nor have i seen a formal delegation
> of the OSMs future to the OSMF.
> So i see multiple problems with the whole relicensing process:
> - No legitimation of the OSMF e.g. vote by all contributers
> or delegation of powers to the OSMF by the contributers
> - No Contributers formal poll or majority to
> a) a license change
> b) license content
> So please dont state that the OSMF represents the contributers. It does not.
> And if we see the contributers beeing OSM so the OSMF neither represents OSM.
> So even if you disagree on parts you might accept that some of the
> contributers feel exspelled from OSM by the OSMF which some of us
> feel is a very nebulous foundation which is not really connected to
> our daily work but still requests all powers.
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the legal-talk