Peter Miller wrote: > I do understand that there is now finally energy within the Foundation to > push this licence though. SteveC has said that he is on the case and that we > should await further details which will be good to see and I do hope that > there will soon be more indication on the list about this progress. I > personally want to work with the Foundation to complete this work given that > there is a lot to do and it shouldn't all be left to the Foundation > directors. They are responsible for the work, but need help.
Agreed: indeed I met Andy last night and reiterated that I'm very happy to help with licensing issues if OSMF would like me to. > I agree with the above sentiments; I don't want to reopen the debate, > however I am not aware that there is a human-readable document describing > what the licence should achieve as that is what I have written. > > Richard: Can I assume that you are in agreement with the 'brief brief' or do > you want to suggest any changes? It seems to tally with what I'd think, yes; but as I say, I'm happy with the revised (spring 2008) ODBL anyway so don't really need a summary or rewrite. Jordan's approach to licence writing is to make the core licence "human-readable" anyway, and I'd agree that's a good approach to take (as opposed to the Creative Commons approach of having two documents, a human-readable summary and an impenetrable legal code). ODBL is admirably clear. cheers Richard _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
