[OSM-talk] Legal discussion on talk@

[Alan Mintz]

At 2010-08-13 14:09, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>Liz wrote:
>>If a poster wishes to spread a message more widely to the community, they 
>>should be quite free to do so.

That's the thinking that killed any worthwhile Usenet groups once the 
internet became available to everyone, sadly destroying a (mostly-) 
well-behaved system. If I wanted to hear and participate in endless 
discussion about licensing issues, I would subscribe to legal.


>Maybe we could have a weekly, or bi-weekly, "legal-talk digest" posted to 
>the talk list. Written by someone who quietly observes, and perhaps picks 
>a few exemplary links: "This week on legal-talk: New insights on the 
>legality of mapping military areas in Russia (link), possible modification 
>to contributor terms of new license to enhance CC-BY compatibility (link), 
>and heated discussion about whether Steve Coast's  descendants can legally 
>inerhit the BDFL title (link)."

Excellent. Bullet points once a week to talk would be lightweight enough to 
be OK, IMO. People (and I expect there are a ton of us) that don't want to 
hear the minutia and flaming that goes on to arrive at consensus (or, more 
often, not) don't have to. If/when something significant is agreed upon, it 
should be summarized in as unbiased a way as possible and posted to 
announce, and people should be reminded to subscribe to announce.

(and I apologize for adding to the noise :) )

--
Alan Mintz <Alan_Mintz+OSM at Earthlink.net>