Frederik Ramm wrote:
People will ask how do you ensure that OSMF doesn't fall into evil
hands, and you will start to invent boards of directors and boards of
overseers and whatnot, and all these will have to be chosen by some kind
of vote; then you'll have to define who may vote. But then
The paranoid people are all on this list. Perhaps 100 ? Which leave a good
49900 who don't really care what the license is. Otherwise we would have
seen a fork long ago.
A few of the normal checks should suffice :
1. The directors should act in the best interest of the community and
disclose any
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Brian Quinion
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Been reading all the discussions for a while with growing frustration.
I find my self mostly agreeing with the CC-By-SA license but I do
wish there was a way to easily provide exceptions to those
organisations
OK, so either not OSMF (but a group setup for the purpose) or OSMF
with better protections for who can be a board member. How about a
group made up of interested parties with a minimum amount of data
submitted to OSM... :-)
Or is the basic idea flawed as well?
--
Brian
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at
On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 12:07:28PM +0100, Brian Quinion wrote:
Been reading all the discussions for a while with growing frustration.
I find my self mostly agreeing with the CC-By-SA license but I do
wish there was a way to easily provide exceptions to those
organisations wishing to make good
