Richard Fairhurst wrote: > > I hate to get all meta, but there seems to be a lot more "fear of fear of > the ODbL" than "fear of the ODbL" (not to say the latter doesn't exist).
This meta fear is mostly due to the fact that the OSMF and LWG are refusing to give even the most vague indication of what this procedure is going to look like and what is acceptable or not. If Richard's statement relayed through Frederik of that at least 90% of data is an absolute minimum becomes binding, (which would still leave a huge amount of room for wiggeling, after all 10% of data would be still 1 1/2 entire Germanys, or nearly all of Europe), much of that fear would likely go away. So please let us have this discussion now and agree on some binding _minimum_ requirements and free up the ODbL decission/vote from these meta issues later on. Kai -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/License-Cut-over-and-critical-mass-tp5279719p5286949.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
