[OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing "free and open license"

[SteveC]

On Jul 20, 2010, at 2:20 AM, Liz wrote:

> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, SteveC wrote:
>> From my experience off list with all the people frustrated both in email
>> and in person, those 20 or so people here just don't represent everyone
>> else who'd prefer all this discussion to go to legal-talk and just move on
>> with the license.
> 
> quash all discussion, move it out of sight, and proceed?

Yes, quash all the discussion on 4 public mailing lists, don't have any public phone calls, don't have any consultation periods or working groups that anyone can join, don't have public minutes, don't convince large legal firms to donate time and effort. Keep the license all to ourselves rather than support it being hosted externally by OKFN.

Yes, we've really clamped down on all that discussion so we can proceed!

Tell me Liz, have you contributed anything positive to this entire process, ever, in any way?

Steve

stevecoast.com