[Osmf-talk] New license proposal status II
frederik at remote.org
Thu Dec 3 00:07:02 UTC 2009
Juha Christensen wrote:
> I wonder what message we're sending to the community by having the process
> proceed in accordance with the agreed schedule, only to see it highjacked in
> the last minute, just before the agreed vote.
The license process has been revolving very much around the issue of
getting ODbL into a shape that would work for us. After this was
completed, the implementation details were discussed.
The most public facing element of the new license is how we present this
to the mappers - how, after clearing all the internal hurdles, are we
going to present the license change to the mapper at large?
This element, the web page or email that we send to more than 150.000
mappers, has only been published in a first draft 6 weeks ago. As I have
explained, there was no reason for me until now to assume that it would
*not* contain a "by the way my data is PD anyway so do what you want"
I think that it is only legitimate that discussion starts if a process
that has been going for years suddenly makes a change a few days before
a crucial vote.
You are talking as if it had been clear for months in advance what we
would be expected to vote upon, but that is not the case. If anything
here is unexpected, it surely isn't what I am writing.
Mike Collinson informed us on 16th October about the status of the
process. In response I pointed out that the suggested document lacks the
"third option". On 27th November we were told that this "third option"
is no longer in the picture. Today is the 3rd December. Does this really
qualify for your choice of the words "hijacking the process"? Who is
I also hope that you were not talking of my legitimate concerns for due
process when you used the words "terrorizing members into canceling
agreed processes"? If so, I respectfully demand either an apology or an
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frederik at remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
More information about the osmf-talk