Hi, Gervase Markham wrote: >> OSFM is trying to get ODbL 1.0 in place as soon as possible and fix >> problems in version 1.1 later on. > > The difficulty with doing that is that people who are approached about > relicensing their data might say "no, because the licence is broken in > ways X, Y and Z which were highlighted by the discussion process." Even > if the reply is "we hope to fix those in 1.1", they might say "well, > come back then, then". So what happens then? Do we remove their data or > don't we?
It would be extremely stupid to go ahead with a license that has known bugs. (There will be enough not-yet-known bugs to fix in 1.1.) - I wasn't on the phone call but Henk Hoff said in a followup on talk-de that it is OSMF's intention to fix the *known* bugs before going live with 1.0. How this fits together with the idea that the schedule need not be modified is anyone's guess. I am concerned about the review by the ITO lawyer; some of the issues raised seem to me of a magnitude that means the license cannot be simply "fixed" to accommodate them - we have a choice to ignore these issues and plough ahead nonetheless (after all: "three lawyers, four opinions"), or if we take them seriously we'd have to do a major rewrite that could not be considered "a later version of ODbL" anymore. I'm eager to hear Jordan Hatcher's response but at the same time, realistically, I lack the legal expertise to decide who has the more convincing argument. If it is difficult for me to make an informed decision, then how can Joe Mapper who hasn't even followed the discussion? 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
