Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Future license upgrades, the heart of the matter
Rob Myers wrote: > Do you have any models in mind? CC and the FSF have been through a > couple of rounds of licence revision over the years and the most recent > ones are easy to review. I think I tried to get involved with both processes, so I'll offer a few observations... CC's 3.0 process seemed to have design flaws (lack-of-design as far as I could tell) and a democratic deficit - didn't it get approved by a "hum vote" at a physical meeting at some stage? I also never understood who were the decision-makers and what the motives were for any CC decisions. I felt I was groping in the dark the whole time. The FSF 3.0 basic process was better, structured by license section and interest, although the interest groups (called discussion committees IIRC) were invited and seemed to under-represent the third sector. Sadly, the implementation of the public process was botched, relying on obsolete (old version of RT), cutting-edge (all-singing all-dancing web browsers) and undocumented (stet) software, all mixed together! Even now, some of the public's points remain unanswered by FSF. Both processes involved secret-unless-they-chose-otherwise groups, which I think is very bad for public trust and would be the main thing I suggest should be different for an open foundation project. Hope that helps, -- MJ Ray (slef) Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ (Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Future license upgrades, the heart of the matter
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 01:41:06AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: > * WHAT changes can be made to the license once it is accepted; I think this should be limited to avoid overstepping. We define the basic things we want the licence to do—collective attribution, share alike for derived data sets, aggregation allowed without sharealike, etc—looking intended use and non‐use cases would be a start. Other revisions of the licence should only be acceptable providing they don’t regress on an intended use case, and only clarify existing terms or add/change terms to work for a pre‐defined use case. > * WHO can make these changes (whom do we trust to make them); and Limiting the licence as above limits the amount of trust we have to place in any one party, at the expense of another possible licence upheaval if everyone decides some major changes are required. > * HOW will such changes become vetted by the community, if at all. I’d like a requirement for any proposed changes to be brought out in the open with plenty of notice and ample opportunity to comment. This doesn’t guarantee the changes are vetted, but at least there is a chance. The acceptable changes again place a limit on how much damage can be done without requiring cooperation of a large proportion of community. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Future license upgrades, the heart of the matter
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 08:59:26PM +, 80n wrote: > On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 12:41 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > > * WHAT changes can be made to the license once it is accepted; > > > > If section 11 of the GDFL 3.1 is anything to go by [1], then pretty much > anything is possible. GNU licences leave the possibility of using different versions of a licence in the hands of the licensor, although they default to any version of the licence. To avoid the sneaky upgrades, a GFDL‐licensed work could have been licensed under the terms of GFDL 1.2 only. -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Future license upgrades, the heart of the matter
Frederik Ramm wrote: > * WHAT changes can be made to the license once it is accepted; > * WHO can make these changes (whom do we trust to make them); and > * HOW will such changes become vetted by the community, if at all. > > These are the decisions that can absolutely not be postponed until after > the license is accepted; while everything else can. Yes I agree with this. It keeps the process open for the future and takes some of the immediate pressure off. Do you have any models in mind? CC and the FSF have been through a couple of rounds of licence revision over the years and the most recent ones are easy to review. - Rob. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
