[OSM-talk] Foundation Elections - Challenge the Candidates

Mikel Maron mikel_maron at yahoo.com
Fri Aug 3 17:23:41 BST 2007

Yikes, I suppose standing for election really does open the way for hard questions!

Well don't want to open a can of worms here, I'll say the optimist in me strives for concensus. Yes, among thousands of people that's probably impossible. I'd hope that anyone who felt strongly about the license would join in that process before the point where confirmation is required. 

Perhaps before we even start on drafting a license, we could have a required poll of contributors on the licensing process, where the choices are to accept the resulting license or commit to participating in a consensus process. Whether before or after, those that don't respond could default to acceptance -- though I'm not certain at all that would be acceptable to active members or even legal.

----- Original Message ----
From: Jon Bright <jon at siliconcircus.com>
To: Mikel Maron <mikel_maron at yahoo.com>
Cc: Nick Black <nickblack1 at gmail.com>; Talk Openstreetmap <talk at openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Friday, August 3, 2007 4:32:17 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Foundation Elections - Challenge the Candidates


Mikel Maron wrote:
> on it. My opinion of the moment is that existing licenses are
> inadequate for OSM, that OSM is the trailblazer here in open
> licensing of geodata, and that likely we'll need to draw up our own
> license which covers legitimate use, as we see it.

I'm not (at least not yet) a foundation member and my opinion isn't 
therefore strictly relevant to this discussion.  Nonetheless: assuming 
an appropriate license could be drawn up and that it met with broad 
consensus among contributors, what would be your plan for confirming 
that contributors are willing to relicense their contributed data?  What 
would you do about contributors who didn't wish to relicense?

Jon Bright
Silicon Circus Ltd.

More information about the talk mailing list