[Osmf-talk] New license proposal status II
frederik at remote.org
Wed Dec 2 23:11:28 UTC 2009
> This isn't the Frederik License Group. It is not all up to you, we
> don't have to write just what Frederik wants. It's not about 'the
> list' coming to agreement, it's about you getting your way and I
> think it'd be an awful abuse of process to change everything just for
I think it is you who have changed something already. The "third option"
has been on the cards ever since RichardF was the Foundation's legal man
(relevant mailing list post has been quoted by me on 16 Oct on this
list), and those LWG members I talked to in private at the last SOTM
thought it was a good idea as well - reaching out to as many people as
possible and trying to include them in the process, rather than making
this a "either I get my way or you get yours" situation.
> If there is a glimmer of that happening, then I too will demand to
> include an essay in the email that goes out and I will also make a
> bunch of demands on what goes in the question, the options and the
> time of day the email is sent.
After some initial ruckus, I find that work in the LWG has very much
improved towards a "let's take things slow, let's see who the
stakeholders are, let's find a way that works for everyone" attitude. IT
would be sad to lose patience after all this good work and risk looking
like someone who wants to rush things through without listening to
It would not cost you much to agree to the "third option". I don't think
anyone would say that this is the "just to placate Frederik" option; as
I said, it has been raised by Dominic Hargreaves in March 2008 and
RichardF, for the OSMF, replied at the time: "Yep, we've been
considering exactly that and will hopefully be able to offer it as a
further option." - It was only a few days ago that Mike Collinson posted
the planned question to put to members which did suddenly NOT contain
this third option; that's the first time OSMF publicly said that they
changed their mind.
I am asking you for nothing more than a token of acknowledgment for the
PD fraction. I am not asking you to sacrifice your beliefs and reccomend
CC0 to everybody. I am not even asking you to poll the contributors
first and then decide what the options should be. It cannot be so hard,
and I believe it would help to unite the community.
If you should choose to ignore my suggestion, which is supported by a
number of other OSMF members on this list, then I think it would only be
fair to give me the opportunity to explain why I, in consequence, think
the proposal is flawed and should be rejected. I don't think this is
ridiculous at all. If this were a vote held at an AGM rather than a vote
held "on the fly", then you would even be required by law  to
circulate member's statements. I agree that this is not an AGM but I
don't see how something that is legally required at an AGM should
suddenly become "ridiculous" when applied to intra-AGM decisions.
 Companies Act 2006 Part 13 Ch. 3 "Members' power to require
circulation of statements".
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frederik at remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
More information about the osmf-talk