[OSM-talk] Results from license debate - assing (c) to OSMF

Robert (Jamie) Munro rjmunro at arjam.net
Tue Jul 17 14:35:22 BST 2007

Hash: SHA1

Tom Hughes wrote:
> In message <ba132d9b5d22feafc47892c5d4d86d91 at acrewoods.net>
>         Tom Chance <tom at acrewoods.net> wrote:
>> They both sound great to me. One quick question if I'm right so far - will
>> the OSMF be developing a formal membership system with democratic
>> structures to ensure that we can collectively make decisions about
>> licensing and so on once we've individually assigned our copyright (or
>> whatever the correct legal move is)?
> It has a formal membership system (it exists and you can join it) and
> some sort of democratic structure as defined by the articles and/or
> memorandum of association.
> The only slight glitch is that short of paying Companies House for a
> copy we don't know what the formal structure is ;-) Somebody told me
> at the conference that it had been put on the wiki while I was away
> last week, but I just looked and can't see it.
> Hopefully the AGM in a few weeks can sort some of these things out.

The AGM doesn't seem to be listed here:

I hope that at the AGM we can get the foundation into a state where it
will be trusted enough by the community for the community to assign
their rights to it. It is possible that all that it needs is a few web
pages explaining how the foundation operates, or it may be that we need
to change the foundations ways.

Once that is done, Steve can send the e-mail to users and get the data
transferred, and as far as I concerned the licensing /problems/ are
over. (but that doesn't mean the debate is over!)

Robert (Jamie) Munro
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


More information about the talk mailing list