Rob Myers <[email protected]> wrote: > Do you have any models in mind? CC and the FSF have been through a > couple of rounds of licence revision over the years and the most recent > ones are easy to review.
I think I tried to get involved with both processes, so I'll offer a few observations... CC's 3.0 process seemed to have design flaws (lack-of-design as far as I could tell) and a democratic deficit - didn't it get approved by a "hum vote" at a physical meeting at some stage? I also never understood who were the decision-makers and what the motives were for any CC decisions. I felt I was groping in the dark the whole time. The FSF 3.0 basic process was better, structured by license section and interest, although the interest groups (called discussion committees IIRC) were invited and seemed to under-represent the third sector. Sadly, the implementation of the public process was botched, relying on obsolete (old version of RT), cutting-edge (all-singing all-dancing web browsers) and undocumented (stet) software, all mixed together! Even now, some of the public's points remain unanswered by FSF. Both processes involved secret-unless-they-chose-otherwise groups, which I think is very bad for public trust and would be the main thing I suggest should be different for an open foundation project. Hope that helps, -- MJ Ray (slef) Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ (Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237 _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
