[OSM-talk] License plan

David Lynch djlynch at gmail.com
Fri Feb 27 15:08:03 GMT 2009


On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 08:08, Peter Miller <peter.miller at itoworld.com> wrote:
> Would it be appropriate to continue this conversation on legal-talk?
> Talk is very busy at the moment and we have a lovely list of our own :)

Why do the non-lawyers need to go to the lawyers if they're making
proposals that impact everyone in OSM, lawyers or not? The
announcement of the implementation plan wasn't even cc:ed to the
larger community, which is completely inexcusable.

> With regard to these questions, lets make a clear distinction between
> the question (which anyone is qualified to raise) and the answer (for
> which one is likely to need to be a lawyer)! Possibly Ben is a lawyer,
> I am not sure, but in the past we have tended to form a legal opinion
> without ever asking a lawyer.

IANAL, but it's my understanding that case law in my particular
jurisdiction says that a contract hasn't been broken when one party
makes a reasonable interpretation of the language of the contract,
even if it isn't what the writer of the contract intended it to mean.
If the wording of the license leads reasonable people on this list to
make the wrong assumptions, you need to know about it so you can
change it.

-- 
David J. Lynch
djlynch at gmail.com




More information about the talk mailing list