[OSM-talk] License plan

[Ben Laenen]

On Friday 27 February 2009, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Ben Laenen wrote:
> > As long as there's no answer to it [...]
> > I wouldn't even accept [...]
> > I would refuse [...]
> > I want a very detailed answer [...]
> > that's really not my concern [...]
>
> Hey, this is a collaborative project. No-one is being paid for this.

Great use of the ellipsis. You may have missed that I actually had some 
things to say there.

I was just pointing out what was missing before you can do anything like 
deciding to go on with a license change.

> You could, you know, even _help_.

This *is* where I'm helping: pointing out these issues that stand 
completely unresolved.

Or am I not allowed to voice any concern here to what may happen with 
the data without giving the complete resolution of all problems I'm 
mentioning?

My hope basically when starting this thread was that these fundamental 
issues would have been cleared up by now in legal-talk or wherever 
since you now made the schedule available.

Some people are leading this license change, they have certainly thought 
about the problems. So are they just ignoring the problems with phrases 
like "you can't copyright facts anyway, so you're mapping work isn't 
licensed, so we can do anything we want". Or is it more like "no mapper 
will sue us, so we can ignore any missing approval of the license 
change"?

Ben