Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference (from osm-talk)
On Nov 25, 2010, at 4:09 PM, Grant Slater wrote: John, On 25 November 2010 20:15, john whelan jwhelan0...@gmail.com wrote: Just a comment from one of the 130 who has voted yes on the recommendation of one of the people I thought was fairly sensible here and I now regret taking his advice. I now strongly suspect I should have spent six months wading through through the legal talk side of things rather than mapping because a whole slew of issues seem to be coming up here. ~4800 existing users have agreed to the Contributor Terms, this excludes the new OSM signups. Or are you discussing the foundation members vote? I would like the ability to go back and change my vote. I don't like being told this is not the place for discussion of license issues or concerns. In light of the recent involvement of Microsoft and other large players I think there are perception problems that need to be addressed. Microsoft/Bing has spoken to the Licensing Working Group on 2 occasions. I flagged these up in the minutes. MapQuest has not spoken to the Licensing Grouping Group. For example I'm very concerned that there is no plan to deal with the transition to the new licensing model. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan If you would like expansion on the items ask. Perhaps OSM should take note of the Open Data mob and be a little more open about what is happening rather than trying to censure discussion on issues and concerns which apparently have not been addressed by the decision makers. They seem to have taken decisions but won't accept any responsibility to address issues and concerns. I'm not asking to stay with the old licenses necessarily but I would like to see some sort of plan and if we can find a way to address the issues and concerns. Censure discussion? Please expand. Moving licensing discussion to a dedicated public list is not censure in my view. There have been many round of question, answers and many revisions. The LWG spends at around 25% of their time just keeping minutes. I'm a member of the LWG, we are all volenteers with the exception of occasional member Steve Coast. Er... what makes you think I'm not a volunteer? :-) Full minutes: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes Regards Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk Steve stevecoast.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference (from osm-talk)
On 26 November 2010 21:37, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Nov 25, 2010, at 4:09 PM, Grant Slater wrote: There have been many round of question, answers and many revisions. The LWG spends at around 25% of their time just keeping minutes. I'm a member of the LWG, we are all volenteers with the exception of occasional member Steve Coast. Er... what makes you think I'm not a volunteer? :-) True, fair comment. I should have been phrased it better ...We are all volunteers working on this in our own time. SteveC's day job is in Geo and without a doubt puts OSM interests first. The rest of us poor suckers work for the man in non-Geo related day jobs. / Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference (from osm-talk)
On Nov 26, 2010, at 3:03 PM, Grant Slater wrote: On 26 November 2010 21:37, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Nov 25, 2010, at 4:09 PM, Grant Slater wrote: There have been many round of question, answers and many revisions. The LWG spends at around 25% of their time just keeping minutes. I'm a member of the LWG, we are all volenteers with the exception of occasional member Steve Coast. Er... what makes you think I'm not a volunteer? :-) True, fair comment. I should have been phrased it better ...We are all volunteers working on this in our own time. SteveC's day job is in Geo and without a doubt puts OSM interests first. The rest of us poor suckers work for the man in non-Geo related day jobs. :-) / Grant Steve stevecoast.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference (from osm-talk)
John, On 25 November 2010 20:15, john whelan jwhelan0...@gmail.com wrote: Just a comment from one of the 130 who has voted yes on the recommendation of one of the people I thought was fairly sensible here and I now regret taking his advice. I now strongly suspect I should have spent six months wading through through the legal talk side of things rather than mapping because a whole slew of issues seem to be coming up here. ~4800 existing users have agreed to the Contributor Terms, this excludes the new OSM signups. Or are you discussing the foundation members vote? I would like the ability to go back and change my vote. I don't like being told this is not the place for discussion of license issues or concerns. In light of the recent involvement of Microsoft and other large players I think there are perception problems that need to be addressed. Microsoft/Bing has spoken to the Licensing Working Group on 2 occasions. I flagged these up in the minutes. MapQuest has not spoken to the Licensing Grouping Group. For example I'm very concerned that there is no plan to deal with the transition to the new licensing model. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan If you would like expansion on the items ask. Perhaps OSM should take note of the Open Data mob and be a little more open about what is happening rather than trying to censure discussion on issues and concerns which apparently have not been addressed by the decision makers. They seem to have taken decisions but won't accept any responsibility to address issues and concerns. I'm not asking to stay with the old licenses necessarily but I would like to see some sort of plan and if we can find a way to address the issues and concerns. Censure discussion? Please expand. Moving licensing discussion to a dedicated public list is not censure in my view. There have been many round of question, answers and many revisions. The LWG spends at around 25% of their time just keeping minutes. I'm a member of the LWG, we are all volenteers with the exception of occasional member Steve Coast. Full minutes: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes Regards Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference (from osm-talk)
On 25 November 2010 23:17, john whelan jwhelan0...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for the link. It seems essentially to say no imports since we reserve the right to change the license at any time in the future so you can't make agreements with third parties and judging by the visuals we've seen so far most of the map will need to be remapped by hand even core bits of the UK. Most of the UK has been mapped by hand. Mappers being on the ground and knowing the local area is OSM's strength. Existing imports are being renegotiated and the licensing plan calls for support from the Licensing Working Group in this regard. Slowly more of the existing imports are turning green: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue Draft template letters are available: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Bulk_Import_Support_Page I am on the opinion that imports should be on OUR terms (OSM). Sure some imports will not be carried across, but we will know where the gaps are. I like a challenge. / Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
