Please move this discussion to legal-talk. On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Shaun McDonald <[email protected]>wrote:
> Love your mail Frederik. You've explained it way better than I could. I'm > definitely now in the "meh" camp and would rather a weekly or fortnightly > digest of what has happened on legal talk, rather than all the discussion > spilling over from legal talk. Thus getting the best of both worlds of being > informed of what is happening with the license, but not need to read through > all of the discussions and specifics that I'm not interested in and don't > have time to read. > > Shaun > > On 13 Aug 2010, at 22:09, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > > Liz, > > > > Liz wrote: > >> If a poster wishes to spread a message more widely to the community, > they should be quite free to do so. > > > > That's basically the same argument that we had for ages on Usenet groups > where people would post offtopic messages because they wanted to reach the > target audience. > > > > The problem is: The system is there to balance your right to say > something and the receiver's right to not be bothered by what you have to > say. > > > > Someone who is interested in legal topics is invited to join legal-talk. > Someone who isn't should not have to deal with legal topics, no matter how > important the author thought they would be. > > > > I fully agree that this is a difficult situation *especially* with regard > to the license change discussion because it has far-reaching consequences, > much unlike some "can I do X under the Y license" debate. I had people > complain on talk-de that they were not informed; when pointed at 2 years' > worth of legal-talk discussion they said "do I look like a legal-talk > subscriber?". > > > > But at the same time, as we have seen, in an environment where everyone > thinks that what he has to say is so damn important, we quickly reach the > point where everyone else just goes "meh". > > > > Maybe we could have a weekly, or bi-weekly, "legal-talk digest" posted to > the talk list. Written by someone who quietly observes, and perhaps picks a > few exemplary links: "This week on legal-talk: New insights on the legality > of mapping military areas in Russia (link), possible modification to > contributor terms of new license to enhance CC-BY compatibility (link), and > heated discussion about whether Steve Coast's descendants can legally > inerhit the BDFL title (link)." > > > > I don't think that the powers-that-be would object to such a digest. It > would only require someone to do it. > > > > Bye > > Frederik > > > > -- > > Frederik Ramm ## eMail [email protected] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" > > > > _______________________________________________ > > talk mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
