[Osmf-talk] New license proposal status II

[Frederik Ramm]

Steve,

SteveC wrote:
> 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
> you.

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 
legitimate opposition.

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 [1] 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.

Bye
Frederik

[1] 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"