Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing Working Group report, 2009/01/22
andrzej zaborowski wrote: Also a different question is bothering me. The old license is the well known CC-BY-SA, so it is automatically compatible with sources (and consumers) using the same license. So, say I've uploaded a lot of information based on wikipedia, conscious that I'm uploading under an alike license. Now that the license changes, I would be obliged to leave even if I agree with the principles of the new license because I cannot agree to relicense data that is not my own (derived works). Depends on the facts/data in question. I'd be interested to hear what they are, but strongly suspect that they would not be deserving of any copyright protection in the first place, and isolated facts on Wikipedia are not arranged in a sufficiently structured manner to merit EU database right protection. By the same token, I don't have any qualms about relicensing information that I've found via CC-licensed photos on geograph.org.uk. If I see a photo on Geograph of a road sign pointing west saying Whissendine 5 with a National Byway sign underneath it, I judge that the National Byway follows that road. The act of taking a (CC-licensed) photograph of that sign does not give copyright protection to the information expressed in the photo nor restrict the extraction of that information, because the photographer has not invested any creative/original work in placing the sign there. (Consumers of OSM data are a different matter because in most cases, including Wikipedia, collective work provisions apply.) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Licensing-Working-Group-report%2C-2009-01-22-tp21611753p21651043.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing Working Group report, 2009/01/22
andrzej zaborowski wrote: Also a different question is bothering me. The old license is the well known CC-BY-SA, so it is automatically compatible with sources (and consumers) using the same license. So, say I've uploaded a lot of information based on wikipedia, conscious that I'm uploading under an alike license. Now that the license changes, I would be obliged to leave even if I agree with the principles of the new license because I cannot agree to relicense data that is not my own (derived works). I don't *think* this will happen very much for the OSM licence change, although some of the big contributed datasets might be affected. It's in the interest of those donors to have the data under an effective licence, though. Excluding the part allowing the Foundation to implicitly introduce new versions of the license might be sufficient for the license to be similar under the definitions of Creative Commons. The similarity requirement is useful but ultimately you need to trust the authors of the licence (and they need to be willing to listen). This is true of any licence. - Rob. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing Working Group report, 2009/01/22
Hi, Richard Fairhurst wrote: By all means have an optional _poll_ beforehand among people who care. If 75% of participants in such a (public) poll say cool, let's go ahead with this license then I'd say it's ok to start offering it to mappers. If 75% say I think this needs some more work BEFORE it is launched, not after then it definitely needs work. Hard to say what happens in between. As long as there's any meaningful consultation - i.e. a consultation that at least in theory could lead to the license being sent back to the drawing board, as Andy Robinson put it - I guess I'm ok with it. I was just unsure because if you're looking at it from an evil angle, Mikel's words could be constructed as meaning: We'll simply put a relicense button up on the web page as soon as the lawyers have finished the draft, and while all those mappers that don't have a clue happily relicense, we let the folks on legal-talk discuss everything into oblivion. I have access to a large proportion of mappers in Germany. I have not made any attempt to discuss the license topic at large on the German mailing list because it seemed unnecessary to open up another place where the same stuff is discussed. Before the new license is being offered to mappers, however, I want the draft translated and dissected in the German community so that they, as far as possible, can form an opinion together, as a community. Even if they're not asked to give input but just make up their mind about go or no-go, at least that time is required - BEFORE the license becomes active and BEFORE un-informed mappers may have made a choice they later regret. Reading Mikel's postings, I felt there was a danger that OSMF could attempt to bypass this community opinion forming by offering the new license to mappers as soon as it was published. Such a political maneouvre would have been considered extremely bad style not only by myself. I now see that this was just paranoia on my part. (It is probably even required to translate the license into German before a mapper from Germany can lawfully re-license; otherwise they can always claim they were not clear about what they were signing.) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing Working Group report, 2009/01/22
Peter Miller wrote: I suggest that a decision made on the basis of a vote if preferable to one made on the basis of who shouts loudest and is also better than one made 'be decree' (which is what I think is being considered at present). Frederik's email of 16.40 covers what I would like to say. - Rob. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing Working Group report, 2009/01/22
Rob Myers wrote: Peter Miller wrote: I suggest that a decision made on the basis of a vote if preferable to one made on the basis of who shouts loudest and is also better than one made 'be decree' (which is what I think is being considered at present). Frederik's email of 16.40 covers what I would like to say. Well his most recent email anyway. My clock is skewed. ;-) - Rob. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing Working Group report, 2009/01/22
2009/1/25 Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net: andrzej zaborowski wrote: Also a different question is bothering me. The old license is the well known CC-BY-SA, so it is automatically compatible with sources (and consumers) using the same license. So, say I've uploaded a lot of information based on wikipedia, conscious that I'm uploading under an alike license. Now that the license changes, I would be obliged to leave even if I agree with the principles of the new license because I cannot agree to relicense data that is not my own (derived works). Depends on the facts/data in question. I'd be interested to hear what they are, but strongly suspect that they would not be deserving of any copyright protection in the first place, and isolated facts on Wikipedia are not arranged in a sufficiently structured manner to merit EU database right protection. True that the information is not structured and costs a person putting the information on OSM a bit of surveying across wikipedia. However it wouldn't be available without the effort put by wikipedians into gatherting the information. The usual example is where a WP page for a street in my city contains information such as the street was previously named X Y until date Z and I tag it with old_name=X Y or other information of not so much siginificance. There are also many pages like http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulica_Rzgowska_w_%C5%81odzi where if you click [pokaż] (under the picture box) will show you names of all streets crossed together with which crossings have traffic lights, and even names of interesting objects beside the way with postal addresses which I like to tag too. There's also a local garmin maps project in Poland that predates OSM from where a lot of data has been initially imported. Their page says they suppose their license terms are those of CC-BY-SA although asked on their mailing list they said they weren't interested in cooperation which means they wouldn't agree to relicense unlike concerned wikipedia editors might if I asked them. I'm sure there are other such cases. By the same token, I don't have any qualms about relicensing information that I've found via CC-licensed photos on geograph.org.uk. If I see a photo on Geograph of a road sign pointing west saying Whissendine 5 with a National Byway sign underneath it, I judge that the National Byway follows that road. The act of taking a (CC-licensed) photograph of that sign does not give copyright protection to the information expressed in the photo nor restrict the extraction of that information, because the photographer has not invested any creative/original work in placing the sign there. I'm no lawyer but I thought that would be a bit in the grey area already, especially considering that value of the photograph is entirely in the information it contains (because it's not posted on a family pictures site). (Consumers of OSM data are a different matter because in most cases, including Wikipedia, collective work provisions apply.) Right. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing Working Group report, 2009/01/22
On 24 Jan 2009, at 15:27, Rob Myers wrote: Peter Miller wrote: Without a public vote the board are effectively saying to each and every one of use individually: 'accept these new terms or please leave the community now and don't slam the door - oh, and we will remove your data shortly'. Clearly this approach will result in lots of people slamming doors! I cannot imagine people leaving if they agree with the licence, and I cannot imagine people who disagree with the licence staying whether it is announced or voted on. Doors will slam either way. There would be no evidence that the majority of the community agreed with the new license, Unless the majority relicence. There is huge difference between the majority being ask one by one to 'relicense or leave now', and one where we are asked if we support it and then later being asked to accept the majority verdict (which is very likely to be in favour of re-licensing). and there were always be accusations of foul play from the inevitable splinter groups. There will anyway. Quite, which is why due process needs to be seen to be done, then we can just shrug and mutter about not being able to please all the people all the time. Currently people will have a very legitimate reason to complain. To be clear, this must be a 'whole community' vote, not a vote by board members, or even just by foundation members. How will the community be defined and how will irregularities and fraud be avoided? Only contributors to OSM can vote. The vote must be made through the OSM messaging system. One person one vote. And how will a silent majority who don't care about licencing not be represented as a vote against the new licence? Only people who vote will be counted. We must recognise that most people will not be interested and will follow the crowd. I suggest a threshold is set for acceptance as it stands. If that threshold is not met then it isn't necessarily back to square one - it might be possible to come back again with a revised version that meets the concerns, but the clear aim is to get it adopted in one go. I don't think a vote is necessarily a good thing. I do think public review is a good thing, however fed up everyone may be. I am glad you agree on a public review. However given that there will still be vocal opposition even after any number of reviews then how do you propose to gauge the actual level of the opposition and if the new license should be adopted? We can assume that one or two people will make a huge amount of noise on the list and give the impression that there is a lot of opposition when this might not actually be the case. I suggest that a decision made on the basis of a vote if preferable to one made on the basis of who shouts loudest and is also better than one made 'be decree' (which is what I think is being considered at present). Thanks Peter - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing Working Group report, 2009/01/22
Frederik Ramm wrote: Sent: 22 January 2009 11:10 PM To: Licensing and other legal discussions. Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing Working Group report, 2009/01/22 Hi, Mikel Maron wrote: We want to move ahead with this draft of the license asap. The license won't be perfect, but there will definitely be a process for feedback and improvements, and the license will get there. In the immediate term, the OSM community kick starts this process by first moving to the first draft of the ODL license. I don't think I fully understand this yet. Your plan is to implement the license as it comes from the lawyers, without further input from any of us, and then perhaps improve it *afterwards* through an as-yet unpublished (and never discussed) upgrading scheme? The licence doesn't get implemented if the vote is against its implementation. If that were to happen then the licence would be back on the drawing board and wholly open to the full discussion process again. We'd be no further on but at least it would have been democratically agreed. Cheers Andy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing Working Group report, 2009/01/22
Hi, thank you for making the December minutes available. From them I see that you're already having your next meeting today. Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote: The licence doesn't get implemented if the vote is against its implementation. If that were to happen then the licence would be back on the drawing board and wholly open to the full discussion process again. We'd be no further on but at least it would have been democratically agreed. Ah, so you're planning to hold a vote. That is a relief, it had not come across so clearly until now. Who will be eligible to vote? What process will be used and what outcome will be considered a yes outcome? I was under the impression that you'd just put the license up and say agree to this or don't but we'll use it anyway and will have delete your data if you don't agree. We can talk later but first you have to agree. Which would of course have been hardly acceptable, hence my questions! Mikel's communication was a bit unclear in this respect. He said We want to move ahead with this draft, and In the immediate term, the OSM community kick starts this process by first moving to the first draft of the ODL license, without ever saying the word vote or contemplating the possibility that the community does not want to move to the license as it is. So the plan is 1. let lawyers do their work 2. publish results 3. allow time for people to digest/discuss/understand but not revise draft 5. hold vote on exact draft as published in 2. 6. if vote positive: implement license and ask mappers to sign up 7. if vote negative: back to the drawing board Is that correct? Mikel? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing Working Group report, 2009/01/22
On 23 Jan 2009, at 14:30, Mikel Maron wrote: Thanks Peter. That's a good summation of the reasoning for an evolving license. And essential questions on the process. That process must be open and engaging. There will be more details next week. I am glad you like my summation. However, with respect we only ever get told what stage the process has got to, but we don't get any details about the license itself. I try to ask very specific and what I consider are reasonable questions, and ones to which answers should be available however they just get passed over. The questions I asked this time were: Will it be possible for the key open elements of it to get removed? I don't know because I haven't seen the text. I got no answer Who will be able to make changes? I don't know and I don't think the foundation knows either - they certainly haven't said I got no answer. However I note from the December board meeting note (published today) that 'there is currently' no hosting option available other than the foundation', so there was an answer available to the question. For the record I could accept the foundation in this role, but only if serious improvements are made to its governance - which are changes we should be making anyway. I have added these questions to 'open issues' so that I don't have the ask them again. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Open_Issues Anyway Mikel, it a huge improvement that someone from the foundation posts on this list regularly at all - do keep it up! Regards, Peter Best, Mikel From: Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 11:36:47 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing Working Group report, 2009/01/22 On 22 Jan 2009, at 23:05, andrzej zaborowski wrote: 2009/1/22 Mikel Maron mikel_ma...@yahoo.com: Hi Fredrik Will they be available to process our input after we see the text? Is there any plan for how our feedback will be processed before the public is asked to accept the new license - will it be *our* job to take the lawyers' version and our feedback and make something suitable from it and then ask everyone to sign up, or will we collect our feedback and then again wait for the lawyers to respond? At the same time a first draft of the license is published, a community of users and legal experts will be established for discussion and refinement of the license. We want to move ahead with this draft of the license asap. The license won't be perfect, but there will definitely be a process for feedback and improvements, and the license will get there. In the immediate term, the OSM community kick starts this process by first moving to the first draft of the ODL license. By moving do you mean starting the relicensing already? What if the part that most people would like to veto is the one allowing the passing of new versions without explicit agreement? I think this is why half of the world uses e.g. GPLv2 or GPLv3 licenses rather than GPLv3+ even though that's what GNU recommends. AFAIK by having the actual data under the evolving license you expose it to the sum of all the loopholes present in any version of the license as it evolved. I believe that it will be necessary for the license to be able to evolve within strict constraints without going back to all the contributors for approval because that would be impossible. Indeed it is already be impossible, but we have to live with that and we will loose content as a result. If one does not allow the license to evolve then surely it will not be able to adapt to new IPR laws and situations? I am however very very interested in who will be able to change the license and how much? Will it be possible for the key open elements of it to get removed? I don't know because I haven't seen the text. Who will be able to make changes? I don't know and I don't think the foundation knows either - they certainly haven't said. Also, we are being told that there will be very open consultation no future changes to the license. Lets hope that Mikel's energy leads to better engagement in the process. Certainly it is a great improvement to have someone to talk to than nobody even if we still have a way to go. Regards, Peter Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing Working Group report, 2009/01/22
On 24 Jan 2009, at 00:25, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, thank you for making the December minutes available. From them I see that you're already having your next meeting today. Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote: The licence doesn't get implemented if the vote is against its implementation. If that were to happen then the licence would be back on the drawing board and wholly open to the full discussion process again. We'd be no further on but at least it would have been democratically agreed. Ah, so you're planning to hold a vote. That is a relief, it had not come across so clearly until now. Who will be eligible to vote? What process will be used and what outcome will be considered a yes outcome? I was under the impression that you'd just put the license up and say agree to this or don't but we'll use it anyway and will have delete your data if you don't agree. We can talk later but first you have to agree. Which would of course have been hardly acceptable, hence my questions! Mikel's communication was a bit unclear in this respect. He said We want to move ahead with this draft, and In the immediate term, the OSM community kick starts this process by first moving to the first draft of the ODL license, without ever saying the word vote or contemplating the possibility that the community does not want to move to the license as it is. So the plan is 1. let lawyers do their work 2. publish results 3. allow time for people to digest/discuss/understand but not revise draft 5. hold vote on exact draft as published in 2. 6. if vote positive: implement license and ask mappers to sign up 7. if vote negative: back to the drawing board Is that correct? Mikel? +1 Without a public vote the board are effectively saying to each and every one of use individually: 'accept these new terms or please leave the community now and don't slam the door - oh, and we will remove your data shortly'. Clearly this approach will result in lots of people slamming doors! There would be no evidence that the majority of the community agreed with the new license, and there were always be accusations of foul play from the inevitable splinter groups. Note that Frederick is suggesting only a 'go/no go' vote without an option to change the document to avoid Steve's concern that we 'will open up a whole new round of consultation' - a concern that I can understand. This method elegantly puts clear responsibly on the board to produce a good license that stands up to scrutiny (which it should do) but it also gives the community as a group a say on whether we accept it. To be clear, this must be a 'whole community' vote, not a vote by board members, or even just by foundation members. I suggest a threshold is set for acceptance as it stands. If that threshold is not met then it isn't necessarily back to square one - it might be possible to come back again with a revised version that meets the concerns, but the clear aim is to get it adopted in one go. Regards, Peter Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing Working Group report, 2009/01/22
Hi Fredrik Will they be available to process our input after we see the text? Is there any plan for how our feedback will be processed before the public is asked to accept the new license - will it be *our* job to take the lawyers' version and our feedback and make something suitable from it and then ask everyone to sign up, or will we collect our feedback and then again wait for the lawyers to respond? At the same time a first draft of the license is published, a community of users and legal experts will be established for discussion and refinement of the license. We want to move ahead with this draft of the license asap. The license won't be perfect, but there will definitely be a process for feedback and improvements, and the license will get there. In the immediate term, the OSM community kick starts this process by first moving to the first draft of the ODL license. If I find some words in the draft that sound wrong or misleading or unsuitable to me, then if I have details of their deliberations I can decide whether the phrase I dislike is in fact a carefully crafted legal construct that has taken them multiple attempts to get right in a legal sense (in that case I won't even try to touch it), or whether it is just something that was completely overlooked and never even discussed between them (in that case I would perhaps suggest a change). The details of their discussion won't be published. However, there will be ample opportunity for detailed examination and discussion of the further versions. I am also, on a more general level, very interested in getting an insight into the intensity of the exchange. Bluntly spoken, once a draft is produced I want to know whether 100 man-days have gone into that or just 5, which will also influence the respect I (and others) have for the document. A document that is the result of a long and arduous process will command more respect than one produced on a Starbucks napkin ;-) The lawyers are certainly taken this work very seriously. Whether or not the back of any napkins were involved is not something I know about. Mikel ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing Working Group report, 2009/01/22
2009/1/22 Mikel Maron mikel_ma...@yahoo.com: Hi Fredrik Will they be available to process our input after we see the text? Is there any plan for how our feedback will be processed before the public is asked to accept the new license - will it be *our* job to take the lawyers' version and our feedback and make something suitable from it and then ask everyone to sign up, or will we collect our feedback and then again wait for the lawyers to respond? At the same time a first draft of the license is published, a community of users and legal experts will be established for discussion and refinement of the license. We want to move ahead with this draft of the license asap. The license won't be perfect, but there will definitely be a process for feedback and improvements, and the license will get there. In the immediate term, the OSM community kick starts this process by first moving to the first draft of the ODL license. By moving do you mean starting the relicensing already? What if the part that most people would like to veto is the one allowing the passing of new versions without explicit agreement? I think this is why half of the world uses e.g. GPLv2 or GPLv3 licenses rather than GPLv3+ even though that's what GNU recommends. AFAIK by having the actual data under the evolving license you expose it to the sum of all the loopholes present in any version of the license as it evolved. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing Working Group report, 2009/01/22
Hi, Mikel Maron wrote: We want to move ahead with this draft of the license asap. The license won't be perfect, but there will definitely be a process for feedback and improvements, and the license will get there. In the immediate term, the OSM community kick starts this process by first moving to the first draft of the ODL license. I don't think I fully understand this yet. Your plan is to implement the license as it comes from the lawyers, without further input from any of us, and then perhaps improve it *afterwards* through an as-yet unpublished (and never discussed) upgrading scheme? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing Working Group report, 2009/01/22
On 22 Jan 2009, at 23:05, andrzej zaborowski wrote: 2009/1/22 Mikel Maron mikel_ma...@yahoo.com: Hi Fredrik Will they be available to process our input after we see the text? Is there any plan for how our feedback will be processed before the public is asked to accept the new license - will it be *our* job to take the lawyers' version and our feedback and make something suitable from it and then ask everyone to sign up, or will we collect our feedback and then again wait for the lawyers to respond? At the same time a first draft of the license is published, a community of users and legal experts will be established for discussion and refinement of the license. We want to move ahead with this draft of the license asap. The license won't be perfect, but there will definitely be a process for feedback and improvements, and the license will get there. In the immediate term, the OSM community kick starts this process by first moving to the first draft of the ODL license. By moving do you mean starting the relicensing already? What if the part that most people would like to veto is the one allowing the passing of new versions without explicit agreement? I think this is why half of the world uses e.g. GPLv2 or GPLv3 licenses rather than GPLv3+ even though that's what GNU recommends. AFAIK by having the actual data under the evolving license you expose it to the sum of all the loopholes present in any version of the license as it evolved. I believe that it will be necessary for the license to be able to evolve within strict constraints without going back to all the contributors for approval because that would be impossible. Indeed it is already be impossible, but we have to live with that and we will loose content as a result. If one does not allow the license to evolve then surely it will not be able to adapt to new IPR laws and situations? I am however very very interested in who will be able to change the license and how much? Will it be possible for the key open elements of it to get removed? I don't know because I haven't seen the text. Who will be able to make changes? I don't know and I don't think the foundation knows either - they certainly haven't said. Also, we are being told that there will be very open consultation no future changes to the license. Lets hope that Mikel's energy leads to better engagement in the process. Certainly it is a great improvement to have someone to talk to than nobody even if we still have a way to go. Regards, Peter Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] licensing working group report
Mikel Maron wrote: So what's next? A technical team meeting will be held this week to discuss the technical implementation. Next week we will hold another licensing working group meeting, where we'll produced the final integrated plan of license and technical process, and timeline for moving to the new license. We'll have another update following next week's meeting. Sounds excellent; glad to hear of progress and thanks for keeping us informed. And good luck. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/licensing-working-group-report-tp21484779p21543549.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
