[OSM-talk] Legal discussion on talk@
80n
80n80n at gmail.com
Sat Aug 14 11:34:44 BST 2010
Please move this discussion to legal-talk.
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Shaun McDonald
<shaun at shaunmcdonald.me.uk>wrote:
> Love your mail Frederik. You've explained it way better than I could. I'm
> definitely now in the "meh" camp and would rather a weekly or fortnightly
> digest of what has happened on legal talk, rather than all the discussion
> spilling over from legal talk. Thus getting the best of both worlds of being
> informed of what is happening with the license, but not need to read through
> all of the discussions and specifics that I'm not interested in and don't
> have time to read.
>
> Shaun
>
> On 13 Aug 2010, at 22:09, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> > Liz,
> >
> > 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 basically the same argument that we had for ages on Usenet groups
> where people would post offtopic messages because they wanted to reach the
> target audience.
> >
> > The problem is: The system is there to balance your right to say
> something and the receiver's right to not be bothered by what you have to
> say.
> >
> > Someone who is interested in legal topics is invited to join legal-talk.
> Someone who isn't should not have to deal with legal topics, no matter how
> important the author thought they would be.
> >
> > I fully agree that this is a difficult situation *especially* with regard
> to the license change discussion because it has far-reaching consequences,
> much unlike some "can I do X under the Y license" debate. I had people
> complain on talk-de that they were not informed; when pointed at 2 years'
> worth of legal-talk discussion they said "do I look like a legal-talk
> subscriber?".
> >
> > But at the same time, as we have seen, in an environment where everyone
> thinks that what he has to say is so damn important, we quickly reach the
> point where everyone else just goes "meh".
> >
> > 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)."
> >
> > I don't think that the powers-that-be would object to such a digest. It
> would only require someone to do it.
> >
> > Bye
> > Frederik
> >
> > --
> > Frederik Ramm ## eMail frederik at remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > talk mailing list
> > talk at openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20100814/e9f9c14f/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the talk
mailing list