Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License to kill
On 6 Mar 2009, at 11:07, 80n wrote: On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 9:54 AM, graham gra...@theseamans.net wrote: Frederik Ramm wrote: I believe the Foundation intends to give a vote *only* to those who were members in good standing as of January 23rd so your few days had better be 40-ish if you want to have a say in the matter. How do I find out if I'm a member in good standing? Is it possible to check the register of members? I paid for membership - once, quite a long time ago - and have never received any subsequent request for subscription and other sum (if any) which shall be due and payable to the Association in respect of my membership - so I guess I've probably been dropped from the list. Is that the way it works? No reminders, and silently dropped? Or do you stay a member as long as you haven't been asked for another subscription, terminating at death? That would seem to be the implication of the 'general' section in the articles of association. Graham If you were a member, but for whatever reason, are not fully paid up, then we give reasonable latitude to pay the fee and be re- instated. You would not lose your right to vote. It's not our intention that members should be penalised because we or you missed an email or a cheque got lost in the post or something. Sounds like this should all get tighened up before the next elections or we might get into 'hanging chad' legal disputes! I do strongly support the setting up of a members mailing list I also strongly support the idea that regular contributor (ie have contributed in three consecutive months) automatically become members and are then dropped if they fail to contribute for over a year, something like that anyway. It would suddenly mean that we had 1,000's of contributors and it would be much harder to dominate the foundation. I know this has been discussed before and deferred, however that is not a reason not to review it before the next elections. Particularly as the whole membership thing seems to be pretty flakey at present. With all this, lets remember where we have come from and how well we are doing. There is no blame in regard to where we are, but that is not a reason not to get to a more professional place rapidly. Regards, Peter 80n ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License to kill
Hi, graham wrote: How do I find out if I'm a member in good standing? Is it possible to check the register of members? I recently asked bo...@osmf for a list of members and received the answer that providing such a list might clash with members' privacy; but they said they thought that creating a members-only mailing list would be a good idea (I expect this to be done any day now). So I guess that, once the list is set up, if you find you receive mails from that list then you are a member ;-) I paid for membership - once, quite a long time ago - and have never received any subsequent request for subscription and other sum (if any) which shall be due and payable to the Association in respect of my membership - so I guess I've probably been dropped from the list. The proper contact at OSMF would be the membership secretary. I don't know anything about their policies regarding renewals. However, I *think* that it was planned to have some kind of grace period, i.e. if your membership has lapsed because you didn't renew, you might have the chance to just pay now and it counts as having renewed after your previous membership expired. But don't take my word for any of this, I do not have any more access to board meeting minutes than anyone else. Is that the way it works? No reminders, and silently dropped? Or do you stay a member as long as you haven't been asked for another subscription, terminating at death? That would seem to be the implication of the 'general' section in the articles of association. I thought that the membership fee was a yearly amount but maybe I was wrong. There are many things in the Articles of Association and the underlying Companies Act that on first reading seem to run contrary to how business in OSMF is conducted, and I put this down to myself not knowing which bits are important and which bits are subject to interpretation. For example I would have thought that the Companies Act says that the register of members must be available on request (even to non-members so could as well be put on the web site), but who am I to know the intricate details of the UK system - there are probably myriad case law issues that say otherwise and only a lawyer will know what counts. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License to kill
Frederik Ramm wrote: I recently asked bo...@osmf for a list of members and received the answer that providing such a list might clash with members' privacy; but they said they thought that creating a members-only mailing list would be a good idea (I expect this to be done any day now). So I guess that, once the list is set up, if you find you receive mails from that list then you are a member ;-) I was going to say that they were absolutely right not to give it to you as it would certainly never have occurred to me that anybody could ask for list and I wouldn't have expected it to be given out, but... The proper contact at OSMF would be the membership secretary. I don't know anything about their policies regarding renewals. However, I *think* that it was planned to have some kind of grace period, i.e. if your membership has lapsed because you didn't renew, you might have the chance to just pay now and it counts as having renewed after your previous membership expired. But don't take my word for any of this, I do not have any more access to board meeting minutes than anyone else. As far as I know you should get an email when your renewal is due. I certainly did last year. I thought that the membership fee was a yearly amount but maybe I was wrong. There are many things in the Articles of Association and the underlying Companies Act that on first reading seem to run contrary to how business in OSMF is conducted, and I put this down to myself not knowing which bits are important and which bits are subject to interpretation. For example I would have thought that the Companies Act says that the register of members must be available on request (even to non-members so could as well be put on the web site), but who am I to know the intricate details of the UK system - there are probably myriad case law issues that say otherwise and only a lawyer will know what counts. ...coming back to the point from the first paragraph, you are probably quite right here. Because the foundation is a limited company, and members of the foundation are the members of that company, the Companies Act probably does require them to give the list to anybody that asks. Certainly for a company limited by share capital the list of shareholders has to be provided (which causes some problems in fact) and the list of members is the equivalent for a company limited by guarantee so it quite probably does have to be divulged on request, even to non-members. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://www.compton.nu/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License to kill
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 6:51 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote: 80n wrote: I support Frederik's view that the community is the most valuable aspect of OSM. Um, I'm not arguing against that. All I'm disputing is this silly little notion that maps automatically lose all value after a year or two. Perhaps it's better to look at it the other way round. How much value does one map *gain* by being more up to date than another map? For some uses, like the street map at Charlbury railway station perhaps not a lot. For other uses, like how to route around the congestion charging zone in central London, there's a lot of value gained by being current. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/License-to-kill-tp22323485p22367102.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License to kill
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote: Frederik Ramm wrote: I recently asked bo...@osmf for a list of members and received the answer that providing such a list might clash with members' privacy; but they said they thought that creating a members-only mailing list would be a good idea (I expect this to be done any day now). So I guess that, once the list is set up, if you find you receive mails from that list then you are a member ;-) I was going to say that they were absolutely right not to give it to you as it would certainly never have occurred to me that anybody could ask for list and I wouldn't have expected it to be given out, but... The fact is that we don't really know whether we have an obligation to publish the list of members or not. When I incorporated the Foundation I didn't know the answer so I put some words on the site to say that by default we'll protect your privacy but we might have a legal obligation to disclose. As of now we still don't know the actual answer because nobody has been motivated enough to find out. We've only ever had one request for the list, from Frederik, and he said he'd be happy with a mailing list for all members instead, so we still haven't bothered to find out the answer. It probably rests on the definition of what a member is. 80n ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License to kill
Hi, Russ Nelson wrote: Well, Ulf has explicitly said that he doesn't trust the process to keep the data free, and wants to be able to sue people whom he believes are infringing the copyright. But as far as contributing without a clear agreement, just look at Wikimapia. Contributing without a *clear* agreement is certainly bad for all involved. You rightfully quite CDDB as a bad example of this. Contributing with a clear agreement - be that PD, ODbL, CC-BY-SA or RichardStallmanOwnsYourCat - does not have that problem because people know what they get and what they don't get. 80n suggested that without a clear promise that everything would remain free forever, people would not contribute, or would contribute significantly less. I said that I am not of this opinion, and quoted Google Map Maker as an example - they know perfectly well that they have no rights over their content and still they contribute. I am sure that OpenStreetMap under an ODbL license where people know that others are allowed to make proprietary Produced Works will be just as interesting a project and grow just as fast as it does today. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License to kill
Hi, Peter Miller wrote: If we get 99% there with version 1.0 and version 2.0 takes the next two years then the cost benefit, to me, would suggest 1.0 as the better deal. Lets first get the consultation input into Jordan, then lets read the updated draft, then comment again if that is requested, then wait for the final draft for version 1. Yes. For the avoidance of doubt, the current draft is IMO nowhere even near 99% there and it is absolutely clear that changes have to be made. Also, the cost of staying with buggy old CC-BY-SA for a few months longer is rather negligible, so any cost-benefit analysis would have to take that into account. It's not that our house is burning and we need someone with a hose quickly. We can then decide as a community if we are happy to proceed (which I think we will). If there is a big problem then I suspect that a version 1.1 could be turned round quickly to address it. Good for you to be optimistic, however I quote Rufus Pollock from odc-discuss: I'd also point out that it will be possible upgrade the license (a v2.0 if you like) though that is not likely to happen that quickly after a v1.0 release. The worst that could happen would be to talk people into accepting a buggy 1.0 with the promise of a quick upgrade to a fixed 1.1 and then seeing 1.1 take forever. It's not that I expect a license to be perfect, none will ever be; I just expect us to fix the bugs we already see, and reserve the upgrade mechanism for those that pop up later, rather than rushing through something where we already have a list of known bugs. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License to kill
On Mar 5, 2009, at 1:10 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Also, the cost of staying with buggy old CC-BY-SA for a few months longer is rather negligible, The barn down the road from me was standing on just four 9 beams. We kept saying Boy, that barn has some structural problems. It could fall down at any time. It didn't fall, and it didn't fall. One might be tempted to think that one could go into the barn and pull one valuable things of one sort or another. The barn finally fell down this winter. If it's a bad idea to use the CC-BY-SA, it's a bad idea to use it for a few months longer. Just because its barn hasn't fallen doesn't mean that the risk is not increasing. Everybody knew that the Johnstown dam was going to go ... when it finally did, nobody paid attention because they didn't believe it actually HAD gone out. But all this discussion is kinda pointless. There are two things going on here: the ODbL is being drafted, and we're deciding whether the ODbL meets our needs (I say our because I joined the Foundation a few days ago.) Until the ODbL is finished, we kinda have nothing to talk about. Yes, the ODbL is being drafted with our specific needs in mind, so if the first published version doesn't meet our needs, we can go back to the well and ask for a revision. But until the ODbL is finished, we're spinning our wheels. Can we assume that the lawyers understand the problem and are working on a solution? -- Russ Nelson - http://community.cloudmade.com/blog - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:RussNelson r...@cloudmade.com - http://openstreetmap.org/user/RussNelson ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License to kill
OJ W wrote: Given that maps need to be regularly updated to stay useful, anyone relying on a CC-BY-SA loophole will be just as SOL if we change the license in a year as if we changed it in time for april fools Shit, I'd better cancel the 25,000 copies of Waterways World rolling off the presses with a largely NPE-derived map of the Chesterfield Canal in, then. I can count on two hands the number of British canals that have moved in the last _century_. The Aire Calder was rerouted because of some mining subsidence. The Ribble Link is new. The Falkirk Wheel caused a realignment of the FC/Union junction. The Worcester Birmingham now swerves to avoid the M42. Er... cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/License-to-kill-tp22323485p22362869.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License to kill
The UK canals don't contribute to the licensing discussions because you mapped them as PD. So we can do whatever we want with the canal data without having to consult anyone. On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 11:11 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: OJ W wrote: Given that maps need to be regularly updated to stay useful, anyone relying on a CC-BY-SA loophole will be just as SOL if we change the license in a year as if we changed it in time for april fools Shit, I'd better cancel the 25,000 copies of Waterways World rolling off the presses with a largely NPE-derived map of the Chesterfield Canal in, then. I can count on two hands the number of British canals that have moved in the last _century_. The Aire Calder was rerouted because of some mining subsidence. The Ribble Link is new. The Falkirk Wheel caused a realignment of the FC/Union junction. The Worcester Birmingham now swerves to avoid the M42. Er... cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/License-to-kill-tp22323485p22362869.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License to kill
OJ W wrote: The UK canals don't contribute to the licensing discussions because you mapped them as PD. I did? I've done comparatively little canal line mapping in OSM, let alone bridges and locks. Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/License-to-kill-tp22323485p22363001.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License to kill
Hi, Richard Fairhurst wrote: OJ W wrote: Given that maps need to be regularly updated to stay useful, anyone relying on a CC-BY-SA loophole will be just as SOL if we change the license in a year as if we changed it in time for april fools Shit, I'd better cancel the 25,000 copies of Waterways World rolling off the presses with a largely NPE-derived map of the Chesterfield Canal in, then. I tend to side with OJW on this. You weren't at the last SOTM (hope to see you this time?) but I had a very nice graph of the expected value of OSM data once the community stops working on it, and, what shall I say, I made it look like life expectancy of mankind after we lose the bees. There may be things that don't change (in another discussion someone pointed out that house numbers could be among them), but in general, the big thing about OSM is not the giant heap of data we have collected (others have more!) but the fact that if you use this data, you have on your side a whole community of people who constantly update, refine, improve, and quality-check the data. I think that without this, OSM is relatively un-interesting. If you had to take OSM data as a basis and then attempt to buy support for it because the community would not do it for you... good luck. Much like OJW in his argument, I have argued for relaxed wording when it comes to the reverse engineering clause in ODbL and for applying less-than-maximum care when dealing with the enforcing the contract issue. My take was that if we have a leak and somehow someone manages to create an OSM derivative that is free of any restrictions (maybe by first exporting it to a corrupt caribbean nation without database law, then employing people to remove the licensing notices and then sending the cleaned thing to the USA or so), and if this becomes a problem for us, we can deal with that *then* because while we cannot take the data that he already has away from him, we can always cut him off from updates. This makes for an altogether better sleep as opposed to the notion that once someone manages to strip off the license then all is lost. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License to kill
80n wrote: I support Frederik's view that the community is the most valuable aspect of OSM. Um, I'm not arguing against that. All I'm disputing is this silly little notion that maps automatically lose all value after a year or two. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/License-to-kill-tp22323485p22367102.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License to kill
On 4 Mar 2009, at 23:24, 80n wrote: On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 12:48 AM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On 4 Mar 2009, at 08:12, Gervase Markham wrote: So lets concentrate on that. Lets build a better process. Lets build a consensus. Absolutely! As long as you allow us the time to (i.e. slow down and stop trying to get it done by the end of March!), then I'm all for that :-) Maybe I'm making a mistake but the end of March is entirely driven by Jordan and the license comment process not me. It's great that Jordan wants to get 1.0 of the license out by April 1st, but that doesn't then require that OSM adopts on the same timescale. If it is published and it still doesn't do what's needed then we just work towards 1.1 We shouldn't let other people's timescales force our own decisions. If more time is needed, and there is a lot of opinion that suggests it is, if the current issues cannot be resolved by April 1 then of course we have the option to give ourselves more time. Sure but we can also build a space laser if we want to. You're taking the benefit side in to account but not the cost. If we get 99% there with version 1.0 and version 2.0 takes the next two years then the cost benefit, to me, would suggest 1.0 as the better deal. Best Steve ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License to kill
On 5 Mar 2009, at 16:09, SteveC wrote: On 4 Mar 2009, at 23:24, 80n wrote: We shouldn't let other people's timescales force our own decisions. If more time is needed, and there is a lot of opinion that suggests it is, if the current issues cannot be resolved by April 1 then of course we have the option to give ourselves more time. Sure but we can also build a space laser if we want to. You're taking the benefit side in to account but not the cost. If we get 99% there with version 1.0 and version 2.0 takes the next two years then the cost benefit, to me, would suggest 1.0 as the better deal. Lets first get the consultation input into Jordan, then lets read the updated draft, then comment again if that is requested, then wait for the final draft for version 1. We can then decide as a community if we are happy to proceed (which I think we will). If there is a big problem then I suspect that a version 1.1 could be turned round quickly to address it. So Rather than distracting us with discussion of space lasers possibly you could help us by commenting on some of the open issues. I would like you opinion on a few particular ones: 1) What is a substantial extract? 2) What happens in places where there is no database directive? 3) What is the Boundary between a Database and a Produced Work 4) Approval from large donated datasets 5) Which features can be retained in the license change? 6) How can one control what is done with a Produced Work that has been released under Public Domain? These issues and others can be found here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Open_Issues Regards, Peter Best Steve ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License to kill
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 7:34 PM, Russ Nelson r...@cloudmade.com wrote: On Mar 5, 2009, at 1:10 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Also, the cost of staying with buggy old CC-BY-SA for a few months longer is rather negligible, The barn down the road from me was standing on just four 9 beams. We kept saying Boy, that barn has some structural problems. It could fall down at any time. It didn't fall, and it didn't fall. One might be tempted to think that one could go into the barn and pull one valuable things of one sort or another. The barn finally fell down this winter. If it's a bad idea to use the CC-BY-SA, it's a bad idea to use it for a few months longer. Given that maps need to be regularly updated to stay useful, anyone relying on a CC-BY-SA loophole will be just as SOL if we change the license in a year as if we changed it in time for april fools, as their update stream stops when the license changes. However, changing to a license before finding out exactly how that license works is like taking out Russ's barn beams and letting the structure fall onto untested supports. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License to kill
On Mar 5, 2009, at 3:34 PM, OJ W wrote: Given that maps need to be regularly updated to stay useful, anyone relying on a CC-BY-SA loophole will be just as SOL if we change the license in a year as if we changed it in time for april fools, as their update stream stops when the license changes. that's my argument from community, which I made last january in a comment on the OSM blog -- that the license doesn't matter -- and if you try to separate yourself from the community, you just cause your own shunning -- which is how the Amish feel about it. However, changing to a license before finding out exactly how that license works is like taking out Russ's barn beams and letting the structure fall onto untested supports. Several people have made that point, including 80N and SteveC (and maybe Andy Allen -- but I'm too lazy to do the research). We don't want to wait too short a time before switching to the new license -- NOR too long a time. For better or worse, pro-bono lawyers are like open source programmers -- you can't make them work on a schedule. They work until they're satisfied with the result. -- Russ Nelson - http://community.cloudmade.com/blog - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:RussNelson r...@cloudmade.com - http://openstreetmap.org/user/RussNelson ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License to kill
Hi, Russ Nelson wrote: The barn down the road from me was standing on just four 9 beams. We kept saying Boy, that barn has some structural problems. It could fall down at any time. It didn't fall, and it didn't fall. One might be tempted to think that one could go into the barn and pull one valuable things of one sort or another. The barn finally fell down this winter. Sure. But assume you have the choice of either replacing the barn today with one where you know the roof leaks and you'll have a hard time fixing it, or wait another few months for the barn designers to get their job done... and we're deciding whether the ODbL meets our needs (I say our because I joined the Foundation a few days ago.) I believe the Foundation intends to give a vote *only* to those who were members in good standing as of January 23rd so your few days had better be 40-ish if you want to have a say in the matter. Until the ODbL is finished, we kinda have nothing to talk about. 1. Are you aware that the initial OSMF timeline planned for ODbL final to come out on 28th March and OSMF member votes due on 7th April? Do you think that these 10 days would be sufficient to have a fruitful discussion? 2. If we wait until it is finished and *then* complain about things that were known even now and that we could have helped to fix in advance of the date, then Steve would (for once) rightfully complain about people just sniping from the sides and not having an interest to help. No? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License to kill
On 4 Mar 2009, at 16:12, Gervase Markham wrote: Incidentally, we're not all code weenies with no clue about licensing. I've been point of contact at the Mozilla project (which is of not insignificant size and complexity) for licensing issues for about five years now, although recently we got our own in-house lawyer (who, by the way, is brilliant. I can ask him and see if he can help out, if you want). Personally, yes, I (Peter) would like to you do that! I am sure Steve may also find it useful but I don't think this is something that needs anyones permission. I also think it will be reassuring and healthy to get a range of legal opinion on the license from different perspectives. I think we should be getting a TV company (ITV? BBC?) to check it for their purposes, a publisher for their purposes etc etc but I don't believe any of that is happening so we need to take offers when we get them. As you may be aware we (at ITO) are doing a review which should be available to the community by the end of the week. If you are getting a formal review done, then I suggest you let Jordan know what you are doing and when your review will be ready so he can optimise his plan around the incoming suggestions. Regards, Peter Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License to kill
On 4 Mar 2009, at 11:27, Frederik Ramm wrote: Steve reluctant to publish publicly as it would invite another round of changes. Blimey, if you talk to people, they might have ideas and suggestions or even want to CHANGE something. Better keep things to yourself and complain later. Frederik you're more intelligent than to take one sentence out of context from a condensed set of minutes which summarised a conversation over a period of time. Here's where your logic is falling over. 1) read about Steve being reluctant 2) Steve is evil 3) mail the list Communication works two ways. Here is how it should have gone: 1) read about Steve being reluctant 2) ask Steve what he meant Just as if this was an in-person conversation with someone you had a few ounces of respect or time for. I'm very sorry I don't always respond in a timely way, or at all to posts on the license. This is for multiple reasons. One I have a lot of things to do. Two all the personal attacks are tiresome. Three whenever I post anything, whatever the intent there are always some people writing back ALL CAPS!?!?! about what they think I should have done, and in those scenarios it's not always easy to stay focused. And last but not least - there is a _lot_ of email on these lists these days. I do try to stay up to date but often it means ploughing through it on a flight. I would love to get more time to be around to answer things and I'm working on it. But you know I am available on IM, very often on IRC and my phone numbers are all listed here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Steve Best Steve ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
