Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference (from osm-talk)

2010-11-26 Thread SteveC
On Nov 25, 2010, at 4:09 PM, Grant Slater wrote: John, On 25 November 2010 20:15, john whelan jwhelan0...@gmail.com wrote: Just a comment from one of the 130 who has voted yes on the recommendation of one of the people I thought was fairly sensible here and I now regret taking his advice.

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference (from osm-talk)

2010-11-26 Thread Grant Slater
On 26 November 2010 21:37, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Nov 25, 2010, at 4:09 PM, Grant Slater wrote: There have been many round of question, answers and many revisions. The LWG spends at around 25% of their time just keeping minutes. I'm a member of the LWG, we are all volenteers with

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference (from osm-talk)

2010-11-26 Thread SteveC
On Nov 26, 2010, at 3:03 PM, Grant Slater wrote: On 26 November 2010 21:37, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Nov 25, 2010, at 4:09 PM, Grant Slater wrote: There have been many round of question, answers and many revisions. The LWG spends at around 25% of their time just keeping minutes.

[OSM-legal-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference (from osm-talk)

2010-11-25 Thread Grant Slater
John, On 25 November 2010 20:15, john whelan jwhelan0...@gmail.com wrote: Just a comment from one of the 130 who has voted yes on the recommendation of one of the people I thought was fairly sensible here and I now regret taking his advice.  I now strongly suspect I should have spent six

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference (from osm-talk)

2010-11-25 Thread Grant Slater
On 25 November 2010 23:17, john whelan jwhelan0...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for the link.  It seems essentially to say no imports since we reserve the right to change the license at any time in the future so you can't make agreements with third parties and judging by the visuals we've seen so