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

[SteveC]

On Dec 5, 2009, at 20:03, 80n <80n80n at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

Let's say you're right and the LWG is wrong, against the odds. What  
would you like to happen now?

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

I don't know what this means.

>
> 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/20091205/df13ba09/attachment.html>