[Osmf-talk] New license proposal status II

Mike Collinson mike at ayeltd.biz
Fri Dec 4 06:57:29 UTC 2009

At 03:39 PM 3/12/2009, SteveC wrote:
>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.

The proposal document is the platform Why You Should Vote Yes, but I do not see why not. LWG has already asked for testimonials.  I will put a link this morning.


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list