Re: [OSM-talk] Legal discussion on talk@
80n wrote: Please move this discussion to legal-talk. BUT ... the discussion on adding a weekly summary of legal-talk HERE should happen HERE. I can't be bothered with all of the back biting, but a sensible coverage of the salient point DOES make sense and one post a week ... which other interested groups could translate would make sense !!! There is no censorship or ulterior motives of all the crap being on legal-talk - anybody can join in - just don't let the bulk of it STILL fall over here as well ;) -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Legal discussion on talk@
Please move this discussion to legal-talk. On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Shaun McDonald wrote: > Love your mail Frederik. You've explained it way better than I could. I'm > definitely now in the "meh" camp and would rather a weekly or fortnightly > digest of what has happened on legal talk, rather than all the discussion > spilling over from legal talk. Thus getting the best of both worlds of being > informed of what is happening with the license, but not need to read through > all of the discussions and specifics that I'm not interested in and don't > have time to read. > > Shaun > > On 13 Aug 2010, at 22:09, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > > Liz, > > > > Liz wrote: > >> If a poster wishes to spread a message more widely to the community, > they should be quite free to do so. > > > > That's basically the same argument that we had for ages on Usenet groups > where people would post offtopic messages because they wanted to reach the > target audience. > > > > The problem is: The system is there to balance your right to say > something and the receiver's right to not be bothered by what you have to > say. > > > > Someone who is interested in legal topics is invited to join legal-talk. > Someone who isn't should not have to deal with legal topics, no matter how > important the author thought they would be. > > > > I fully agree that this is a difficult situation *especially* with regard > to the license change discussion because it has far-reaching consequences, > much unlike some "can I do X under the Y license" debate. I had people > complain on talk-de that they were not informed; when pointed at 2 years' > worth of legal-talk discussion they said "do I look like a legal-talk > subscriber?". > > > > But at the same time, as we have seen, in an environment where everyone > thinks that what he has to say is so damn important, we quickly reach the > point where everyone else just goes "meh". > > > > Maybe we could have a weekly, or bi-weekly, "legal-talk digest" posted to > the talk list. Written by someone who quietly observes, and perhaps picks a > few exemplary links: "This week on legal-talk: New insights on the legality > of mapping military areas in Russia (link), possible modification to > contributor terms of new license to enhance CC-BY compatibility (link), and > heated discussion about whether Steve Coast's descendants can legally > inerhit the BDFL title (link)." > > > > I don't think that the powers-that-be would object to such a digest. It > would only require someone to do it. > > > > Bye > > Frederik > > > > -- > > Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" > > > > ___ > > talk mailing list > > talk@openstreetmap.org > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Legal discussion on talk@
Love your mail Frederik. You've explained it way better than I could. I'm definitely now in the "meh" camp and would rather a weekly or fortnightly digest of what has happened on legal talk, rather than all the discussion spilling over from legal talk. Thus getting the best of both worlds of being informed of what is happening with the license, but not need to read through all of the discussions and specifics that I'm not interested in and don't have time to read. Shaun On 13 Aug 2010, at 22:09, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Liz, > > Liz wrote: >> If a poster wishes to spread a message more widely to the community, they >> should be quite free to do so. > > That's basically the same argument that we had for ages on Usenet groups > where people would post offtopic messages because they wanted to reach the > target audience. > > The problem is: The system is there to balance your right to say something > and the receiver's right to not be bothered by what you have to say. > > Someone who is interested in legal topics is invited to join legal-talk. > Someone who isn't should not have to deal with legal topics, no matter how > important the author thought they would be. > > I fully agree that this is a difficult situation *especially* with regard to > the license change discussion because it has far-reaching consequences, much > unlike some "can I do X under the Y license" debate. I had people complain on > talk-de that they were not informed; when pointed at 2 years' worth of > legal-talk discussion they said "do I look like a legal-talk subscriber?". > > But at the same time, as we have seen, in an environment where everyone > thinks that what he has to say is so damn important, we quickly reach the > point where everyone else just goes "meh". > > Maybe we could have a weekly, or bi-weekly, "legal-talk digest" posted to the > talk list. Written by someone who quietly observes, and perhaps picks a few > exemplary links: "This week on legal-talk: New insights on the legality of > mapping military areas in Russia (link), possible modification to contributor > terms of new license to enhance CC-BY compatibility (link), and heated > discussion about whether Steve Coast's descendants can legally inerhit the > BDFL title (link)." > > I don't think that the powers-that-be would object to such a digest. It would > only require someone to do it. > > Bye > Frederik > > -- > Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Legal discussion on talk@
Kai, Kai Krueger wrote: P.S. Frederik, looks like we are getting closer to your beloved monthly printed high gloss OSM members magazin... ;-) Not my idea - nicked it from FakeSteveC: http://fakestevec.blogspot.com/2009/03/future-of-communications-is-happening.html Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Legal discussion on talk@
Frederik Ramm wrote: > > Maybe we could have a weekly, or bi-weekly, "legal-talk digest" posted > to the talk list. Written by someone who quietly observes, and perhaps > picks a few exemplary links: "This week on legal-talk: New insights on > the legality of mapping military areas in Russia (link), possible > modification to contributor terms of new license to enhance CC-BY > compatibility (link), and heated discussion about whether Steve Coast's > descendants can legally inerhit the BDFL title (link)." > Something similar appears to have been attempted in the German community with the new "Wochennotiz" ( e.g. http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/osm%20dortmund/diary/11315 ) This in general summarizes the various things that have happened in the OSM-community in the last week including the various communications channels like the german and english forum, the german ML and the various other mailinglists including legal-talk if it is of relevance to a wider audiance. It then appears to then be cross-posted to the OSM diary, the forum and the mailinglist in order to give easy access to the important information that is spread accross the about 500 communication channels that OSM has, without requiring everything to get posted 500 times and thus allow to keep things focused. So I think if something like that could be done on the English lists too, that would help everyone to better choose what they are interested in and what not, without missing important developments, be they legal, technical or social. Kai P.S. Frederik, looks like we are getting closer to your beloved monthly printed high gloss OSM members magazin... ;-) -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Legal-discussion-on-talk-tp5420322p5421954.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Legal discussion on talk@
Alan Mintz wrote: At 2010-08-13 14:09, Frederik Ramm wrote: Liz wrote: If a poster wishes to spread a message more widely to the community, they should be quite free to do so. That's the thinking that killed any worthwhile Usenet groups once the internet became available to everyone, sadly destroying a (mostly-) well-behaved system. If I wanted to hear and participate in endless discussion about licensing issues, I would subscribe to legal. Like others I made up my mind about the license change a long time ago, when it was first discussed. I was subscribed to legal for a long time as well. I guess the people posting about this think they are making "killer arguments" and everyone on the list is waiting with baited breath, but I delete them because I think they are endless arguments between a small group of people who will never be convinced of other people's viewpoints anyway. I support SteveC in enforcing the categorizing of the mailing lists. Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Legal discussion on talk@
On 13/08/2010 22:41, Liz wrote: I think that is censorship. Not every person on talk belongs to legal-talk. If a poster wishes to spread a message more widely to the community, they should be quite free to do so. If a poster says on this ML : "there is an important debate on legal-talk about ... that needs your opinion" OK. Maybe I would have a look. But if people come here to talk on legal matter, I would quit this list and maybe I would go on legal-talk to talk about general subjects. -- FrViPofm ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Legal discussion on talk@
At 2010-08-13 14:09, Frederik Ramm wrote: Liz wrote: If a poster wishes to spread a message more widely to the community, they should be quite free to do so. That's the thinking that killed any worthwhile Usenet groups once the internet became available to everyone, sadly destroying a (mostly-) well-behaved system. If I wanted to hear and participate in endless discussion about licensing issues, I would subscribe to legal. Maybe we could have a weekly, or bi-weekly, "legal-talk digest" posted to the talk list. Written by someone who quietly observes, and perhaps picks a few exemplary links: "This week on legal-talk: New insights on the legality of mapping military areas in Russia (link), possible modification to contributor terms of new license to enhance CC-BY compatibility (link), and heated discussion about whether Steve Coast's descendants can legally inerhit the BDFL title (link)." Excellent. Bullet points once a week to talk would be lightweight enough to be OK, IMO. People (and I expect there are a ton of us) that don't want to hear the minutia and flaming that goes on to arrive at consensus (or, more often, not) don't have to. If/when something significant is agreed upon, it should be summarized in as unbiased a way as possible and posted to announce, and people should be reminded to subscribe to announce. (and I apologize for adding to the noise :) ) -- Alan Mintz ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Legal discussion on talk@
Am 13.08.2010 23:09, schrieb Frederik Ramm: The problem is: The system is there to balance your right to say something and the receiver's right to not be bothered by what you have to say. Someone who is interested in legal topics is invited to join legal-talk. Someone who isn't should not have to deal with legal topics, no matter how important the author thought they would be. Oh, yes, I see. Someone who is proposing the change is allowed to use every possible way to announce the change: announce ML, a wiki banner, ... Someone who is opposing that change should shut up on any other way than legal-talk. Unless there's a balanced approach to represent both pros and cons of the license change, every attempt to push related talk to legal-talk ML *is* in fact censorship. Regards, ULFL ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Legal discussion on talk@
On 8/13/10, Frederik Ramm wrote: > [...] > Maybe we could have a weekly, or bi-weekly, "legal-talk digest" posted > to the talk list. Written by someone who quietly observes, and perhaps > picks a few exemplary links: [...] This would be interesting: topics on legal are probably important enough for every osm contributor that having an idea on what's happening is very useful -- Elena ``of Valhalla'' homepage: http://www.trueelena.org email: elena.valha...@gmail.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Legal discussion on talk@
Liz, Liz wrote: If a poster wishes to spread a message more widely to the community, they should be quite free to do so. That's basically the same argument that we had for ages on Usenet groups where people would post offtopic messages because they wanted to reach the target audience. The problem is: The system is there to balance your right to say something and the receiver's right to not be bothered by what you have to say. Someone who is interested in legal topics is invited to join legal-talk. Someone who isn't should not have to deal with legal topics, no matter how important the author thought they would be. I fully agree that this is a difficult situation *especially* with regard to the license change discussion because it has far-reaching consequences, much unlike some "can I do X under the Y license" debate. I had people complain on talk-de that they were not informed; when pointed at 2 years' worth of legal-talk discussion they said "do I look like a legal-talk subscriber?". But at the same time, as we have seen, in an environment where everyone thinks that what he has to say is so damn important, we quickly reach the point where everyone else just goes "meh". Maybe we could have a weekly, or bi-weekly, "legal-talk digest" posted to the talk list. Written by someone who quietly observes, and perhaps picks a few exemplary links: "This week on legal-talk: New insights on the legality of mapping military areas in Russia (link), possible modification to contributor terms of new license to enhance CC-BY compatibility (link), and heated discussion about whether Steve Coast's descendants can legally inerhit the BDFL title (link)." I don't think that the powers-that-be would object to such a digest. It would only require someone to do it. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Legal discussion on talk@
Liz wrote: On Sat, 14 Aug 2010, SteveC wrote: Please move all legal discussion (except announcements of course) to http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk or http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-general Steve stevecoast.com I think that is censorship. Sorry, but your thinking is nonsense! This just has nothing to do with censorship. Asking for legal discussions to happen on the legal list is common sense. I have long ago made up my mind on the licensing issues and would appreciate not having to read through a lot more of this. I only contribute original data, based on my own GPS traces, and so any talk about license implications on tracing from Yahoo images or such concerns that may possibly be reasonable for some to consider, do not apply to me. Who feels that this is relevant to them can follow legal-talk. Not every person on talk belongs to legal-talk. Yes, by choice! There is a reason osm has more than one list. If a poster wishes to spread a message more widely to the community, they should be quite free to do so. Yes, so, if you really must, send an _occasional_ update on talk summarizing new developments on legal-talk and why they may be relevant to some users on talk. That is the exception included in the original post. Best regards, Holger ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Legal discussion on talk@
Every person on talk who wants to discuss the legal nuances of OSM licensing belongs on legal-talk. I have my license preferences and opinions but at the end of the day I will probably continue to contribute to OSM whether ODbL happens, CC remains or the whole thing goes to PD. It isn't censorship, it is venue appropriateness. Toby On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:41 PM, Liz wrote: > On Sat, 14 Aug 2010, SteveC wrote: >> Please move all legal discussion (except announcements of course) to >> >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk >> >> or >> >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-general >> >> Steve >> >> stevecoast.com >> > > I think that is censorship. > Not every person on talk belongs to legal-talk. > If a poster wishes to spread a message more widely to the community, they > should be quite free to do so. > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Legal discussion on talk@
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010, SteveC wrote: > Please move all legal discussion (except announcements of course) to > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > > or > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-general > > Steve > > stevecoast.com > I think that is censorship. Not every person on talk belongs to legal-talk. If a poster wishes to spread a message more widely to the community, they should be quite free to do so. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
