Well, I brought this up now, because for one the thing has changed so many times, and now they are asking people to leave.
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Dermot McNally <[email protected]> wrote: > On 16 April 2011 08:31, Elizabeth Dodd <[email protected]> wrote: > > > So has anyone asked the FOSS gurus of licensing? > > I have never seen it mentioned while I was subscribed to legal-talk. I > > am quite prepared to start writing emails (phrased neutrally) requesting > > an opinion if these people have not been asked before. > > > > If then the opinion is that the new licence has merit, we then need > > work on how the contract provisions "fit in" with other legal codes not > > just those derived from either the Westminster or Napoleonic codes. > > How long have you been in this discussion, Elizabeth? Quite a while, > according to my recollection. Given that you seem to now see a > requirement for this kind of validation, I find it strange that you > wouldn't have sought it at a much earlier stage than this. Normally > abject opposition should come after, not before, "neutral" appraisal > of the proposal, shouldn't it? > > Dermot > > -- > -------------------------------------- > Igaühel on siin oma laul > ja ma oma ei leiagi üles > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova and Albania flossk.org flossal.org
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
