Hi, 80n wrote:
Indeed, we've been suffering from this license-twiddling induced stasis for far too long now. That's why I've proposed that the LWG/OSMF achieve a clear and undeniable mandate by September 1st or just drop the whole thing. We can't afford to let this cancer continue eating away at the project any longer.
If it had been for what was then the LWG, we'd have switched to ODbL some time in early 2009. At that time, the plans were shoddy, many details about the ODbL were totally unclear, and it looked as if we'd all be steamrolled into a license change with minimal information.
There was, predictably, an outcry, and I was among those who protested at the slipshod way of making such a big decision.
Since then, a lot of work has been done, refining definitions, explaining consequences, evaluating use cases. Tons and tons of documentation are on the Wiki, countless hours have been spent consulting lawyers. The matter has been handled with all the diligence it deserves.
I'm surprised that you should call what seems to me like a proper process a "cancer eating away at the project". Would you have preferred a quick license switch 1.5 years ago when nobody really had thought about what a derived database was, what a produced work was, and what "substantial" meant in the context of our database?
Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [email protected] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
