On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 04:57, Andy Allan <gravityst...@gmail.com> wrote: > If you look at the license plan you'll see it comes in the following stages: > > 1) Make the plan and the draft public. Ask for feedback. > 2) Wait for feedback to be taken into account and expect/hope for a > final version of the ODbL > 3) See if the OSMF board approves > 4) See if OSMF members like what results > 5) If they do, then start asking the rest of the community
> Maybe we've found some people who want to be invovled in stage 1 who > didn't realise until now that they did. Good. It's nice to have more > people interested. Agreed. It's a good thing that we're getting interest now and not after it's too late. I think some of the anger that's resulted from all of this is because we're writing an OSM license -- yes, I know it's not *just* an OSM license, but we look to be the first big user and seem to be one of the major forces behind its creation -- at arm's length through ODC. The "dark side" of the free-as-in-speech nature of open source/databases/etc. is that people get very unhappy when they feel like they haven't been able to contribute. Not having the license as an OSM project, or even prominently pointed out from the OSM site, makes people feel left out. I think three months would be reasonable if a finalized ODbL 1.0 had been published for a while or we were going to some other license that had already had the what-ifs answered and/or dealt with, but when the text isn't finalized yet and there's already a timeline with specific dates to move to the new license, it feels like we're being pushed. Personally, I'd love to see 5 moved up to before or concurrent with 3 and 4, even if it's just a straw poll that results in "x% say they they think OSM should adopt ODbL, y% say they would probably agree to the license but think it still needs work, z% say they don't want to change, and w% of the people who logged in didn't answer the poll." I assume that there would be a second vote required to actually approve moving to the new license, but it lets people feel like they're involved before the OSMF and/or its board make any decision. -- David J. Lynch djly...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
