> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:legal-talk- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Fairhurst > Sent: 03 October 2008 13:58 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Spam] Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Process for agreeing the new licence > > Peter Miller wrote: > > > I do understand that there is now finally energy within the Foundation > to > > push this licence though. SteveC has said that he is on the case and > that we > > should await further details which will be good to see and I do hope > that > > there will soon be more indication on the list about this progress. I > > personally want to work with the Foundation to complete this work given > that > > there is a lot to do and it shouldn't all be left to the Foundation > > directors. They are responsible for the work, but need help. > > Agreed: indeed I met Andy last night and reiterated that I'm very > happy to help with licensing issues if OSMF would like me to. >
Great > > I agree with the above sentiments; I don't want to reopen the debate, > > however I am not aware that there is a human-readable document > describing > > what the licence should achieve as that is what I have written. > > > > Richard: Can I assume that you are in agreement with the 'brief brief' > or do > > you want to suggest any changes? > > It seems to tally with what I'd think, yes; but as I say, I'm happy > with the revised (spring 2008) ODBL anyway so don't really need a > summary or rewrite. > > Jordan's approach to licence writing is to make the core licence > "human-readable" anyway, and I'd agree that's a good approach to take > (as opposed to the Creative Commons approach of having two documents, > a human-readable summary and an impenetrable legal code). ODBL is > admirably clear. > You are obviously more adept at reading machine code than me! Seriously, I think that most potential users would find it hard to decode what the current draft licence would mean for them, I do however agree that the legal text should be as easy to understand as possible. As such I think the twin document will be necessary, one paraphrases the main points in a few words, the other is the legally binding contract and is ideally 1 page or 1.5 pages max; however we can decide on whether we need the summary as the process continues. Peter > cheers > Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
