[Osmf-talk] CC BY SA 2.0 and backup plan

[80n]

On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 10:55 PM, SteveC <steve at asklater.com> wrote:

>
> On Dec 5, 2009, at 3:52 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> > In fact, I'm pretty sure that if the LWG had made an effort to reach out
> to the critics and get their feedback
>
> On planet Frederik where water runs uphill and cats chase dogs, there
> weren't three rounds of input on the license, the LWG minutes weren't open,
> 80n wasn't on the board and didn't see all this stuff, Matt didn't
> diligently respond to every concern...
>
> Steve
You will no doubt remember that the LWG didn't even record any minutes until
I pushed for them do so.

You will no doubt also remember that after the LWG's proposals were
presented to the board on 9th July 2009, I provided extensive feedback.
There are 21 points alone noted in this document:
http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_0hnnw6tc9

I don't think you realised that OSM is much more than just a few people who
hang out on the OSM talk mailing lists.  There are many thousands of
contributors who need to be involved in the process.  It takes real hard
work to reach out to them.  The license change is not a simple message and
so requires extraordinary effort and outreach to communicate it to the
community.

To think that because the LWG had feedback from one person and that this is
sufficient is perhaps a little bit fanciful.


> But on planet Earth, these things did indeed happen.
>
> Yours &c.
>
> Steve
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20091206/bdadbe20/attachment.html>