The suggestions re the Use Case page all sound good. Looking at the wiki history page, I assume but cannot absolutely guarentee that review has been made of the version extant 19th Jan (there were then no edits for a month). I've grabbed a copy of that page and will insert the review comments into that as suggested. Give me till Sat.
Mike At 12:52 PM 27/02/2009, Peter Miller wrote: >On 27 Feb 2009, at 10:09, Grant Slater wrote: > >> The OSMF License Working Group is excited and pleased to announce the >> completion of legal drafting and review by our legal counsel of the >> new >> proposed license, the Open Database License Agreement (ODbL). >> > >Thank you for your work to date; clearly a lot of work has gone into >this. > >We will now pass this information to our own legal people for review. >We will publish their response to the community as soon as it is >available. If we have any interim questions we will post those to the >list as well. > >I have a question about how we manage the Use Cases wiki page during >the consultation phase... The legal people have responded to one set >of Use Cases (excellent news indeed), however the wiki can be changed >at any time so the legal view will become out-of-date as the Use Case >text is updated. > >Can I suggest that a separate .pdf document is published which >contains the Use Case version that was actually consulted on and the >response from the legal people to that version? I suggest that we then >revert the Use Case wiki page to the version prior to the legal >comment being added and that we then update the text for the Use Cases >in response to this feedback we have received. > >We should then possibly seek a further review of any Use Cases where >the text has been altered (the WIki 'diff' feature will allow us to >identify which Use Cases have updated between the date that the legal >people took their initial version and the current version). > >I also suggest that we delete the ' A brief for the proposed SA >licence ' section of the Use Case page as that is now historical, it >may not actually reflect the license and is a distraction (note that I >was the main author of it, so no one should be offended by doing that!). > > >Regards, > > > >Peter Miller >ITO World Ltd > > >_______________________________________________ >legal-talk mailing list >legal-t...@openstreetmap.org >http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
