[Osmf-talk] New license proposal status II

SteveC steve at asklater.com
Thu Dec 3 14:39:35 UTC 2009

On Dec 3, 2009, at 12:49 AM, 80n wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Ulf Möller <um at ulfm.de> wrote:
> Frederik Ramm schrieb:
> > The responsibility of the decision lies with the members. They need to
> > be fully informed. If *I* were on the LWG, I would welcome opposition
> > statements and include them in the letter I send to the members, because
> > it is not *me* who makes the decision, and not me who has to take
> > ultimate responsibility - it is the members. If I would keep crucial
> > information away from them, that would only open the door to later
> > claims of a doctored process.
> I think in the interest of transparency the email should include link to
> the archive of this discussion, or to a wiki page summarizing it.
> Could the LWG please consider provision of a link to a wiki page where those who do not support the new license can put their case?
> This is a formal request, copied to Mike Collinson, Chairman of the LWG.
> 80n

I too would like this opportunity and am formally asking the LWG to please consider a link to a wiki page where people who *do* support the new license can put their case, and also put their case as to why this is the least-worst solution. This might well be a different case than the LWG would put and therefore deserves it's own space. I also ask that this wiki page link be put above the link to the case against the license. This is copied to Mike, Chairman of the LWG.

Yours &c.


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list