On 26 November 2010 10:24, John Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 26 November 2010 20:18, Emilie Laffray <[email protected]> > wrote: > > As far as I can tell, we are still talking with Nearmap to find a > compromise > > acceptable to both party. The last email I exchanged with Ben Last was > last > > night. I don't think we are near a breakdown in communication at all. I > > Is there any kind of time line on this? It'd be nice if there was some > sort of guide to license change over for that matter too, it seems > previous time lines agreed upon are being ignored... > As much as I would like to commit to time line, I just can't. Legal stuff takes time to resolve and contrary to some organization like Wikimedia, we don't have full time staff and full time hired legal counsel. The only I can do is try to keep people up to date on some milestone. Again, if you have questions, I will be happy to try to answer them either publicly either privately (my time is sparse those days, so I apologize in any delay you might get before I answer you). I think my point of view is known (I believe in the CT and licensing change) but I certainly do not believe in preaching as I strongly believe that the claim should stand on their own and that's why we are still working on getting input and tweaking the CT in order to fix potential issues, which had an impact on the timeline and will continue to have one until we have a final version. This is unfortunate as I suspect that all of us want to go to mapping and start ignoring some legal issues whatever the output is. Emily Laffray
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
