All
Our lawyer has had a chat with Jordan (the original author of the
ODbL). I spoke with Jordan this morning and he has a list of suggested
changes with explanations from our lawyer which he is reviewing.
I expect and hope this stage to be a simple review process before
taking the next ste
Hi,
Shaun McDonald wrote:
> Because there isn't enough time to read and answer all the mails that
> come to this list. It is better to bundle everything up, filtering all
> the duplicates and getting him to answer them all at once.
Granted. Whoever does the "bundling and filtering", please pu
On 25 Oct 2008, at 07:57, Jochen Topf wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 08:23:19AM -0700, SteveC wrote:
>> On 23 Oct 2008, at 07:17, 80n wrote:
>>
>>> [..]
>> Please don't mail him personally, the worst thing would be multiple
>> conversations as his time is valuable and they are doing this pro-
>
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 08:23:19AM -0700, SteveC wrote:
> On 23 Oct 2008, at 07:17, 80n wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 8:06 AM, Jochen Topf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 09:24:37PM -0700, SteveC wrote:
> > > I've received back general comments from Wilson Sonsi
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 09:24:37PM -0700, SteveC wrote:
> I've received back general comments from Wilson Sonsini
> (http://www.wsgr.com/WSGR/Index.aspx
> ) on the latest draft.
>
> My next task is to review those comments and feed them back to this
> list, review the use cases on the wiki and
All
I've received back general comments from Wilson Sonsini
(http://www.wsgr.com/WSGR/Index.aspx
) on the latest draft.
My next task is to review those comments and feed them back to this
list, review the use cases on the wiki and feed those to Wilson
Sonsini and probably take a call or mee
"Peter Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From: MJ Ray [...]
> > Not *the* licence project. *That* licence project, making use cases
> > and testing things against them. I don't see how that connects to the
> > OSMF licence development work except at one point => it is a tangent.
>
> I don't f
Peter Miller wrote:
> I am keen that we don't inadvertently allow data to be 'bled' from the
> project is ways that isn't useful to the project (hence the 'Bad Map Co' Use
> Cases).
So are we, and (though more on this will follow) we are expecting that
a new clause will be added to the Open Dat
> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:34:19 +
> From: MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License update
> To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-a
Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ I wrote, apparently unattributed: ]
> > Sorry if I'm coming into this cold from the outside, but I really
> > don't see why any readers would help this apparently-tangential
> > licence project.
>
> What appears to be tangential about the license project,
Peter,
> I posted a query about various 'Use Cases' for OSM data in regard to the new
> licence on the 7th Feb. See archive here:
>
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2008-February/000680.htm
> l
>
> I was concerned to see that the answers received were not conclusive and
> that
Frederik Ramm wrote:
>Sent: 19 March 2008 3:00 PM
>To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
>Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License update
>
>Hi,
>
>> Bully for you. What's in it for other participants? More abuse that
>> they can't give conclusive
Hi,
> Bully for you. What's in it for other participants? More abuse that
> they can't give conclusive answers and aren't not qualified lawyers?
Well perhaps you're coming "cold from the outside" as you say, you
have missed one thing: The Foundation has been pushing this new
license specifi
"Peter Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2008-February/000680.html
>
> I was concerned to see that the answers received were not conclusive and
> that no response has been given by a qualified lawyer. With regard to the
> brief for this l
I posted a query about various 'Use Cases' for OSM data in regard to the new
licence on the 7th Feb. See archive here:
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2008-February/000680.htm
l
I was concerned to see that the answers received were not conclusive and
that no response has be
Charles Basenga Kiyanda wrote:
> I'm also wondering. How can one legally agree to release a
> contribution under a license which is unfinished? Or am I
> misunderstanding the situation and the ODL is in fact done?
Technically speaking the user would be licensing their contributions
under th
Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>> This could take a little while, so we're thinking of changing the
>> language of _new_ user signups to instead of releasing their work as
>> CC, but as CC _or_ the ODL if the rest of the community vote on it.
>>
>
> 1. It is, in my eyes, far from clear
Hi,
> This could take a little while, so we're thinking of changing the
> language of _new_ user signups to instead of releasing their work as
> CC, but as CC _or_ the ODL if the rest of the community vote on it.
1. It is, in my eyes, far from clear what exactly the community
will vote on (wi
Richard, Andy and I just had a conference call to review where we are
with the license.
Progress is going well.
We've engaged Jordan and sent off the changes we suggested to him, he
is integrating them and will be releasing a new version.
Once released he will consult with other interested p
19 matches
Mail list logo
