On 14 August 2011 22:39, Henk Hoff <o...@toffehoff.nl> wrote: > Op 12-08-11 23:34, Nic Roets schreef: > >> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 10:47 PM, Michael Kugelmann<michaelk_...@gmx.de> >> wrote: >> >>> While the first SOTM at Manchester (July 2007) there was a pannel about >>> the >>> license. BTW: >>> >>> So, did the panel ASK the individuals attending what license they want ? >> >> To my recollection, there was not a question on what specific license we > wanted, but what kind of elements the license should have. > Attribution and Share-Alike where two elements an OSM license should have. >
This is one of the areas where I think the licence-change process has fallen down - it's never been particularly clear when decisions have been made. Like many people, I wasn't involved with OSM at that time (I discovered it later that year). If the consensus from the the meeting was that we wanted attribution and share-alike, was that decision clearly noted down somewhere? Fast forward to mid 2009 or even 2010, and it wasn't clear to me or many other people that we'd actually made that decision. When I joined the various debates in legal-talk and other places, I was still under the impression that we (as general contributors) could have a say about that. Not that I necessarily think it should be different, but I was under the impression that it was still up for discussion. There are a lot of things that now seem to have been decided quite a while ago, but it was never clear to many people that they had been decided already. -- James
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
