Hi, SteveC wrote: > 1) A high level, simple, talk for the business day on rough use cases > on the data and best practise. Something like "you can use OSM data > but make sure you don't mix it with proprietary data, make sure you > attribute OSM". This wouldn't be a perfect talk, but would give > businesses and people looking to get involved with OSM a high level > introduction without getting too scary
I'd advise against that for two reasons: 1. We (or at least: I) don't yet know how long the ODbL process is going to take and what will come of it. So such a task would continuously switch between what is now (CC-BY-SA) and what might come (ODbL). It would not be ok to talk about CC-BY-SA only even though that will still be the status quo at SOTM, but neither would it be ok to talk about ODbL as if it were a done deal, so you have to talk about both, and everyone will get confused. 2. I'd fear that someone later comes and says "but at the conference you said..." because the talk was too non-scary ;-) I think the time for such a talk at the business day will come next year when the license change issue has settled one way or the other. > 2) A talk at the main OSM conf days about the PROCESS of the legal > working group. How often we meet, who we are, how a meeting goes, what > we discuss, who we talk to, what the minutes look like, how to get > involved... This is just about how we work, not the subject matter to > give people a better insight in to what goes on. I think the planned process for the license review/discussion/implementation will be interesting to many people; the internal processes of those driving it might not be. > 3) A debate at the main OSM conf. A panel of key members of the > license working group plus jordan and rufus. It lasts an hour. 15 > minutes are brief introductions and points of view from the panel > members and then 45 minutes of open debate on any license issue with a > moderator. This might be before lunch or a break so people can > continue discussing afterward. That would be a similar format to what we had in 2007. What I remember about 2007: * liked the fact that the panel had most views represented among themselves and the views were presented clamly and clearly; * liked that the debate managed make many people think about the license who didn't care before * disliked that because of shortness of time some things were said but could not be questioned adequately * disliked the way it ended - somehow it just stopped without a proper ending, without a tangible result > 4) The same as (3) but with a _structured_ debate. Say 4 main topics > and 10 minutes debate on each, or 3 topics of 15 minutes each. > Something like that so that rather than debate about anything we > debate some key issues to make sure they are covered. In the 2007 debate, Nick (the moderator) made an effort to keep as much in the background as possible, letting each panel member say their piece. I was thinking maybe if the moderator instead acted as if he were genuinely interested and needed an explanation, then that would have the potential to structure things quite well (at the expense of leaving that structuring to the moderator who would have to ask the right questions). Any kind of open debate would of course risk being dragged down one way or another. People would say that the license is bad because it doesn't help the sheep of Scotland and you'd have to point out that our project is not about sheep, and they would say ok I'll delete my data then. Any kind of structured debate would risk being accused as too narrow in focus (they would not even consider the help-the-sheep license!). Personally, I am happy about anything that involves people. The debate ideas you suggested do appeal to me (but who is going to stand up for PD now that RichardF has converted to the dark side of the force?), but even if you'd just do a 15 minute presentation that goes "What is ODbL and why does the OSMF think it is good for us", and take 30 minutes of questions from the audience afterwards, that would be ok for me too. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
