On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com wrote:
Now I'm asking you about a list of the OSMF members publicly. I'm not an
OSMF member for the record.
The OSMF is asking for an OSM license change, so I really want to know
what the persons in question are that
SteveC schrieb:
(This is meant as a funny way to say that, when other important
business
has been resolved, we should perhaps one day clean up the AoA; it is
not
meant to suggest that there was something wrong with those serving on
the OSMF board.)
Well I don't really get the joke,
Hi!
SteveC schrieb:
We've not always done a great job of communicating for a variety of
reasons but it was never with malice.
But you have actually succeeded in making quite a number of people
suspect malice - and warn others about that.
I do not agree, but I think it is a natural
Nop wrote:
I want to correct something here, there is this view of 100,000 users
needing consent. The number is in fact far smaller for people who ever
made an edit (about 30% of the users). It's vastly smaller still for
anyone who has edited anything significant. It's an easier problem than
Hi,
Andy Allan wrote:
1) Make the plan and the draft public. Ask for feedback.
2) Wait for feedback to be taken into account and expect/hope for a
final version of the ODbL
3) See if the OSMF board approves
4) See if OSMF members like what results
The word final should probably be struck
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
Andy Allan wrote:
1) Make the plan and the draft public. Ask for feedback.
2) Wait for feedback to be taken into account and expect/hope for a
final version of the ODbL
3) See if the OSMF board approves
4) See
On 4 Mar 2009, at 23:51, Nop wrote:
2. Provide translations of this in the major languages. Most people
speak English to some degree, but some don't and something of this
importance and with so much legalese involved does need to be in
your
native language to be sure you understood it.
On 4 Mar 2009, at 23:42, Nop wrote:
Hi!
SteveC schrieb:
To me this is similar to ignorance of the law is no defence. The
data, people and facts are out there and it's not our job to serve
them up to you in the specific best way you want. We will help all
we can when you ask
On 5 Mar 2009, at 00:14, Nop wrote:
Hi!
SteveC schrieb:
We've not always done a great job of communicating for a variety of
reasons but it was never with malice.
But you have actually succeeded in making quite a number of people
suspect malice - and warn others about that.
I do
On Thursday 05 March 2009, SteveC wrote:
On 4 Mar 2009, at 23:51, Nop wrote:
2. Provide translations of this in the major languages. Most
people speak English to some degree, but some don't and something
of this importance and with so much legalese involved does need
to be in your
You too Andy, great post.
On 5 Mar 2009, at 02:57, Andy Allan wrote:
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 12:40 AM, MP singular...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. At least when you expect 10 people to go along and the
issue
has the potential to break OSM apart, it would not be a bad idea
to send
monthly
Great post Dair!
On 5 Mar 2009, at 02:04, Dair Grant wrote:
Nop wrote:
I want to correct something here, there is this view of 100,000
users
needing consent. The number is in fact far smaller for people who
ever
made an edit (about 30% of the users). It's vastly smaller still for
On 5 Mar 2009, at 03:35, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
Andy Allan wrote:
1) Make the plan and the draft public. Ask for feedback.
2) Wait for feedback to be taken into account and expect/hope for a
final version of the ODbL
3) See if the OSMF board approves
4) See if OSMF members like what
SteveC wrote:
On 4 Mar 2009, at 23:42, Nop wrote:
Hi!
SteveC schrieb:
To me this is similar to ignorance of the law is no defence. The
data, people and facts are out there and it's not our job to serve
them up to you in the specific best way you want. We will help all
we can
Pierre-André Jacquod wrote:
Was a surprised by the announcement. Read the license and mails.
Would probably have said yes.
But I do not like the way this went on. The fact that those who want
to change it just say you do not want to help. That's my free time,
that's your's.
Seriously,
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
I know it's not always easy but we're none of us great at communication,
we're none of us actually paid to think that carefully about what we write,
so it's all too easy to get wound up in a http://xkcd.com/386/ kind of way.
At which point Steve does something between
On Mar 5, 2009, at 12:19 PM, graham wrote:
I think it would be
extremely helpful if the licenses themselves included an explanation
for
non-lawyers, in the way the gpl always did.
Not always a good idea. If your license has any ambiguities, then a
judge will go outside your license to
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 04:57, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
If you look at the license plan you'll see it comes in the following stages:
1) Make the plan and the draft public. Ask for feedback.
2) Wait for feedback to be taken into account and expect/hope for a
final version of the
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Russ Nelson r...@cloudmade.com wrote:
On Mar 5, 2009, at 12:19 PM, graham wrote:
I think it would be
extremely helpful if the licenses themselves included an explanation for
non-lawyers, in the way the gpl always did.
Not always a good idea. If your license
On Mar 5, 2009, at 1:06 PM, Matt Amos wrote:
ummm good? as long as the explanation doesn't contradict the
license, what is the problem?
The problem is that you've got an impedance mismatch. If you comment
about your license, it can become PART OF your license, which means
that you
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Russ Nelson r...@cloudmade.com wrote:
On Mar 5, 2009, at 1:06 PM, Matt Amos wrote:
ummm good? as long as the explanation doesn't contradict the
license, what is the problem?
The problem is that you've got an impedance mismatch. If you comment about
your
On Mar 5, 2009, at 2:54 PM, Matt Amos wrote:
us trying to read a complex license
without comments is like lawyers trying to read complex code without
comments.
They're mostly hard to read because they're tedious in their detail.
Legal writing isn't actually THAT impenetrable, if you can
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 8:09 PM, Russ Nelson r...@cloudmade.com wrote:
On Mar 5, 2009, at 2:54 PM, Matt Amos wrote:
us trying to read a complex license
without comments is like lawyers trying to read complex code without
comments.
They're mostly hard to read because they're tedious in their
2009/3/5 Russ Nelson r...@cloudmade.com:
On Mar 5, 2009, at 2:54 PM, Matt Amos wrote:
us trying to read a complex license
without comments is like lawyers trying to read complex code without
comments.
They're mostly hard to read because they're tedious in their detail. Legal
writing
2009/3/5 Dave Stubbs osm.l...@randomjunk.co.uk:
2009/3/5 Russ Nelson r...@cloudmade.com:
On Mar 5, 2009, at 2:54 PM, Matt Amos wrote:
us trying to read a complex license
without comments is like lawyers trying to read complex code without
comments.
They're mostly hard to read because
as you said: comments should explain things that *aren't* in the
code, not repeat the code (incorrectly) in english. your example of a
bad comment doesn't answer my question: if you are reading code and
you do not understand why it is written the way it is, don't you read
the comments to find
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Russ Nelson r...@cloudmade.com wrote:
I think it would be
extremely helpful if the licenses themselves included an explanation for
non-lawyers, in the way the gpl always did.
Not always a good idea. If your license has any ambiguities, then a judge
will go
Hi!
Ok, first of all, when I use the term you I don't mean you personally,
I mean the OSMF as a group. I have no idea who's in charge of what
there, I just know that none of you has taken care of an information
process and you are currently listening.
SteveC schrieb:
But you have actually
El Miércoles, 4 de Marzo de 2009, Ulf Lamping escribió:
Hopefully you know and trust the lawyers, foundation, whoever, ...
involved. WE PROBABLY DON'T KNOW THEM SO WHY SHOULD WE MAGICALLY TRUST
THEM?!?
Because they are more knowledgeable in their field than we are.
I do think this is another
On Mar 4, 2009, at 2:33 AM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
Simply saying we're the OSMF board and we know what's good for you
is
a very, very bad idea to build trust!
But that's not what Steve said. Steve is trying to teach you how
lawyers work. I've watched lawyers work, as a fly on the wall.
Hi!
Iván Sánchez Ortega schrieb:
El Miércoles, 4 de Marzo de 2009, Ulf Lamping escribió:
Hopefully you know and trust the lawyers, foundation, whoever, ...
involved. WE PROBABLY DON'T KNOW THEM SO WHY SHOULD WE MAGICALLY TRUST
THEM?!?
Because they are more knowledgeable in their field
Hi!
Russ Nelson schrieb:
Hopefully you know and trust the lawyers, foundation, whoever, ...
involved. WE PROBABLY DON'T KNOW THEM SO WHY SHOULD WE MAGICALLY TRUST
THEM?!?
You can't. There is no magic wand to create trust. Only through time
and repeated interaction can you learn to
On Mar 4, 2009, at 3:28 PM, Nop wrote:
Pay attention to what? There was no attempt to inform a wider number
of
people.
I'm a small fish in the OSM pond, but I managed to notice Steve's
opengeodata.org posting of last January talking about relicensing:
http://www.opengeodata.org/?p=262
On Mar 4, 2009, at 5:14 PM, Nop wrote:
And I never heard of it until now. And wasn't in OSM when it was
posted.
Fair enough, but any time you join a group there will be efforts
underway which you haven't contributed to, not know about, nor had any
effect on. I guess that given the
On Mar 4, 2009, at 5:59 PM, Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote:
El Miércoles, 4 de Marzo de 2009, nicholas.g.lawre...@mainroads.qld.gov.au
escribió:
How about the option of contributors transferring their
copyright to OSM (the legal entity) which can then choose
to release the data under an
How about the option of contributors transferring their
copyright to OSM (the legal entity) which can then choose
to release the data under an appropriate license?
This is not a good idea because the OSMF can be bought out quite easily
by a
big company.
I don't understand. Bought out
Hi!
Russ Nelson schrieb:
On Mar 4, 2009, at 5:14 PM, Nop wrote:
And I never heard of it until now. And wasn't in OSM when it was posted.
Fair enough, but any time you join a group there will be efforts
underway which you haven't contributed to, not know about, nor had any
effect
El Jueves, 5 de Marzo de 2009, nicholas.g.lawre...@mainroads.qld.gov.au
escribió:
How about the option of contributors transferring their
copyright to OSM (the legal entity) which can then choose
to release the data under an appropriate license?
This is not a good idea because the
Hi,
Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote:
Basically, you get enough people (and pay for their memberships) in order to
buy their votes, in order to eject the current chairman, yadda yadda yadda.
If you're unhappy with the current chairman you don't even have to eject
him. Quote from the Articles of
Hi!
Martijn van Oosterhout schrieb:
Out of curiosity, what would have been better? The licence has been
recognised to be a problem for years, it was known well before I
joined. It's been discussed at almost every OSM meeting I've been at.
But you're right, we didn't plaster a huge banner
Yes. At least when you expect 10 people to go along and the issue
has the potential to break OSM apart, it would not be a bad idea to send
monthly information about the state of things.
Hmm ... perhaps sometimes it would be good to mass-email all members
when it is about changes with
3. Define a way for feedback from the community. Maybe some unoffical
votes would have given an impression on how well a particular idea would
have worked.
Maybe put up a poll like:
Do you think OSM should change license for all data from cc-by-sa to odbl?
( ) Yes, I agree
( ) Yes, but the
On 4 Mar 2009, at 16:08, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote:
Basically, you get enough people (and pay for their memberships) in
order to
buy their votes, in order to eject the current chairman, yadda
yadda yadda.
If you're unhappy with the current chairman you don't
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 12:49 AM, MP singular...@gmail.com wrote:
3. Define a way for feedback from the community. Maybe some unoffical
votes would have given an impression on how well a particular idea would
have worked.
Maybe put up a poll like:
Do you think OSM should change license for
I think others have responded well to most of your rant, if not the
please point it out and I'll respond.
On 3 Mar 2009, at 23:33, Ulf Lamping wrote:
Hi!
I'm not sure you're aware, but you're currently on the best way to
make
the license to kill phrase come true!
First of all: If
On 4 Mar 2009, at 06:49, LeedsTracker wrote:
2009/3/4 Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es:
On the other hand, I'm absolutely sure that the ODbL will fail and be
exploited. The same way that the GPL2 was exploited by TiVo. I'm
absolutely
sure the ODbL will not address problems in
On 4 Mar 2009, at 12:02, Nop wrote:
Hi!
Iván Sánchez Ortega schrieb:
El Miércoles, 4 de Marzo de 2009, Ulf Lamping escribió:
Hopefully you know and trust the lawyers, foundation, whoever, ...
involved. WE PROBABLY DON'T KNOW THEM SO WHY SHOULD WE MAGICALLY
TRUST
THEM?!?
Because they
On 4 Mar 2009, at 12:28, Nop wrote:
Hi!
Russ Nelson schrieb:
Hopefully you know and trust the lawyers, foundation, whoever, ...
involved. WE PROBABLY DON'T KNOW THEM SO WHY SHOULD WE MAGICALLY
TRUST
THEM?!?
You can't. There is no magic wand to create trust. Only through
time
On 4 Mar 2009, at 14:53, Russ Nelson wrote:
On Mar 4, 2009, at 5:14 PM, Nop wrote:
And I never heard of it until now. And wasn't in OSM when it was
posted.
Fair enough, but any time you join a group there will be efforts
underway which you haven't contributed to, not know about, nor
On 4 Mar 2009, at 16:57, Matt Amos wrote:
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 12:49 AM, MP singular...@gmail.com wrote:
3. Define a way for feedback from the community. Maybe some
unoffical
votes would have given an impression on how well a particular idea
would
have worked.
Maybe put up a poll
On 4 Mar 2009, at 16:20, Nop wrote:
Hi!
Martijn van Oosterhout schrieb:
Out of curiosity, what would have been better? The licence has been
recognised to be a problem for years, it was known well before I
joined. It's been discussed at almost every OSM meeting I've been at.
But you're
On 4 Mar 2009, at 16:40, MP wrote:
I personally had no idea about the license change before it got posted
on this list few days ago and I am contributing to OSM for more than
year and half...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RpSv3HjpEw
Best
Steve
I want to correct something here, there is this view of 100,000 users
needing consent. The number is in fact far smaller for people who ever
made an edit (about 30% of the users). It's vastly smaller still for
anyone who has edited anything significant. It's an easier problem
Considering the
Hi!
SteveC schrieb:
To me this is similar to ignorance of the law is no defence. The
data, people and facts are out there and it's not our job to serve
them up to you in the specific best way you want. We will help all we
can when you ask though.
Thank your for bringing it down to
Hi!
SteveC schrieb:
I guess a good strategy would have been:
1. Provide some background information and keep it current
- the problems with the current licence
- the intention of the new licence
- the current state of the process
- and later the wording of the licence
Perhaps you could
55 matches
Mail list logo
