On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 12:01:02PM +0100, 80n wrote: > The license change is the biggest single issue facing OSM at this time. > There are frequently complaints that people have not been aware that it was > happening. Shunting it off to legal-talk@ could be construed as a way of > helping the process to happen by stealth and attrition.
I was one who complained (at least about the Contributor Terms, I was quite aware of the ODbL)… Anyhow, let me quote from my own mail: > > I think it’s fine to see the odd legal query on talk, and maybe even a > > reply or two, but any lengthy discussion involving the finer details > > should really be referred to legal-talk, just because it’s there, and > > people who have looked into the finer details, including the LWG, are > > more likely to be paying attention to legal discussion there. I don’t think it should be completely removed, just that any discussion more than a reply or two should be referred to the relevant list. As I also said in a later post, what’s wrong with bringing it to the attention of talk list members, and referring discussion to the more relevant list? Anybody can join legal-talk, just like talk, and anybody can view the archives. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
