It does concern me that the only people discussing the licence are not officially included in the consultation process at all and it makes it all seem less useful than it should be. We have also not had any official comment on any of the questions raised on the list recently from the foundation. Licence transition is important but wasn't covered at all in the previous text.
None of us have seen any of the recent drafts. I have requested one on a number of occasions without any success yet. This concerns me as we have a considerable amount resting the the licence being suitable for our purposes (as of course do many other users). Our lawyer responded to the foundation to the previous draft some weeks ago but we have had no response from the foundation. I note from the minutes of the last OSMF board meeting (http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dcs6phhk_35dkhtq2dj ) that SteveC expects to release this licence in the next 14 days "Steve confirmed that he was still working to a Christmas completion basis" but that there are various important issues still to be resolved. For the record here are the recent posts from Steve that mention since the 1st Oct: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2008-October/001375.html http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2008-October/001592.html http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2008-October/001596.html http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2008-October/001597.html http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2008-October/001676.html http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2008-October/001688.html http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2008-November/001756.html I really don't know what else we can do without proper engagement with these important questions from the key people. There is a lot of talent available on this list asking a lot of good questions and I would have hoped that we could get some good answers. Personally I have done just about everything I can. I have put together Use Cases, I have updated the wiki and I have communicated privately with the Foundation but to date this seems to have been met with silence. Regards, Peter On 10 Dec 2008, at 16:52, Rob Myers wrote: > On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 4:35 PM, 80n <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Given the very cautious approach OSM has had to copyright >> infringement up to >> now, this does seem like a rather reckless and uncharacteristic >> position for >> us to take, but I don't think I've heard any other proposals for >> how to deal >> with this. > > Would it be possible for CC to offer a licence transition clause for > "large scale open geodata projects" in the same way the FSF has > offered an FDL -> BY-SA get out for Wikipedia in the current minor FDL > revision? The first addition of data to OSM after this could then be > used to relicence the resulting derivative database under the new > licence. > > - Rob. > > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
