Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing Working Group report, 2009/01/22
Johann H. Addicks wrote: > I consider evolving licenses as evil blank cheques. They are a necessary evil. And a necessary blankness. > Even if there is preamble saying "all future versions will be in the same > faith like this" a lot of contributors will feel that they are forced to > trust somebody they do not know so far as beginners. This might be repelling. It hasn't repelled enough people to stop GNU or Wikipedia succeeding. > Think about organisations that you ask for data and you show them a OSM- > license that says "license will change in the future without notice" Think about organizations that show you no licence. > Then even a PD-release would be easier, because then everybody knows that > there is nothing more coming you can ask for. This solves the problem by causing it immediately. ;-) - Rob. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing Working Group report, 2009/01/22
> That's a good summation of the reasoning for an evolving license.
I consider evolving licenses as evil blank cheques.
("i agree to this version of licence and any future version relased by
$FOUNDATION")
Even if there is preamble saying "all future versions will be in the same
faith like this" a lot of contributors will feel that they are forced to
trust somebody they do not know so far as beginners. This might be repelling.
Think about organisations that you ask for data and you show them a OSM-
license that says "license will change in the future without notice"
Then even a PD-release would be easier, because then everybody knows that
there is nothing more coming you can ask for.
-jha-
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing Working Group report, 2009/01/22
Peter Miller wrote: > I am however very very interested in who will be able to change > the license and how much? > [...] > 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. Whoever is chosen to "host" the licence. I don't believe this has been decided yet. > 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. CC licences deal with this by saying that licensed works can only move forward to "a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License". The way to address this explicitly in ODbL would be to add similar text to 4.4.a.ii. There was, indeed, such text in there at one point - I can't remember why it was taken out. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Licensing-Working-Group-report%2C-2009-01-22-tp21611753p21651178.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing Working Group report, 2009/01/22
andrzej zaborowski wrote: > 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. ...is true, but rather pales into insignificance against the fact that CC-BY-SA is almost certainly not valid for data, so anyone with heavy-enough lawyers and a disregard for community opinion can do whatever they like with our data already. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Licensing-Working-Group-report%2C-2009-01-22-tp21611753p21651125.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing Working Group report, 2009/01/22
Peter Miller wrote: > 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). On reflection, I think having a community-wide "indicative" vote first, and a "do you agree to relicense?" process afterwards, would do much more harm than good. The 99% of people who don't subscribe to legal-talk simply won't understand it. They will vote on the first one, then get mails about the second one, think "oh, I've done this", and ignore it. Now you can say that we will explain the difference fully in the e-mail, and that's a nice idea, but as the poor unfortunate responsible for writing the Potlatch splash screen, I can tell you that OSM contributors do not read anything put in front of them. Even if it is in flashing 72pt red/pink text and uses the AS3 extended API to punch the user in the nose. I think TomH would tell you the same story about the messaging system e-mails, which say PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE in four different languages with a nice border of stars, and yet which people still ignore. By all means have an optional _poll_ beforehand among people who care. Maybe put something on talk@, the user diaries, the forum and OpenGeoData to gauge people's views; add a little box on the LH of the main page in the same way as the SOTM ad that appears there. Give people the chance to express their views if they care. But a compulsory whole-community vote will just confuse the matter. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Licensing-Working-Group-report%2C-2009-01-22-tp21611753p21651101.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing Working Group report, 2009/01/22
From: OJ W > On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 9:59 PM, Mikel Maron wrote: > > The license won't be perfect, but there will be a process for feedback and > > improvements, and the license will get there. > > This phraseology sounds very businesslike. I'm sure I've heard the > "we know x is dismal but we've agreed to it anyway" phrase many times > at work, often followed by "if we suddenly find ourselves with nothing > better to do in the future, we might consider improving it" > > (not a comment on the proposed license, just on the email justifying it) Wow, I sounds business-y. Guess I was being careful with the phrasing. Though I'm sure that "won't be perfect" is not that the same as "dismal". Anyhow, dudes, I'll try to sound more unprofessional in future emails. -Mikel ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing Working Group report, 2009/01/22
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. Best, Mikel From: Peter Miller To: Licensing and other legal discussions. 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 : >> 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-t...@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing Working Group report, 2009/01/22
From: Frederik Ramm > Mikel Maron wrote: > > WSGR has returned their comments on the text of the ODbL to Jordan for > > review. > > Can I see the text they have been commenting on, and can I see their > comments? We want to let them finish this discussion, and then the license text will be posted publicly. It's very close at this point. Mikel ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing Working Group report, 2009/01/22
Hi, Mikel Maron wrote: > WSGR has returned their comments on the text of the ODbL to Jordan for > review. Can I see the text they have been commenting on, and can I see their comments? 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
[OSM-legal-talk] Licensing Working Group report, 2009/01/22
Hello This morning we held a second meeting of the OSM licensing working group. Steve, Grant, Jordan, Mikel and representation from WSGR were on the call. We briefly reviewed the outcome of the technical group meeting earlier this week. Most of the general code for allowing people to agree to the license, etc, is completed, and ready for implementation within the overall integrated plan. Work continues on the timeline and organization of license community. We'll have details as soon as this is ready, hopefully by Monday. WSGR has returned their comments on the text of the ODbL to Jordan for review. They plan to talk early next week to work out final details. After they have spoken, we will have our next working group meeting, on Thursday. Best Mikel & the Licensing Working Group___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] licensing working group report
On 19 Jan 2009, at 17:27, Mikel Maron wrote: Hi Peter Yesterday we held the first meeting of the Licensing working group. At the last Foundation Board meeting before the holidays, we decided to convene a working group to expedite the final process of moving OSM to the new license. In attendance were Steve Coast and myself from the Board, Grant Slater from the technical team, and Jordan Hatcher, the lawyer who has been working on the ODL. > I had not heard of this working group before. Could you clarify who is on it, what is the brief for the group and when it was formed? Has Steve's role in this changed or is he still in charge of > the drafting process? Well pretty much what I said. We decided to form a working group at the last Foundation Board meeting to help usher the new license into existance and adoption. Steve, Grant and myself are on the working group. Jordan Hatcher was invited to the group due to his involvement in the ODL. Steve is chair of the group. Possibly you could update timeline article to explain clearly how this license will be implemented, and then we can assist you with that process. Following this first version, a community of users and legal experts around the license will be developed to generate public comment and review, and work on refinements to the license. As the ODL evolves, OSM will be able to take on new revisions without the large task of getting re-licensing permission from our contributors. > To be clear. You saying that the full license text will only be available for review by the community 'after' it has been released to the full user base for acceptance? If so then it would seem that > the next we will see of the license will be a copy in our inbox and a request to sign it or leave the project and have our data removed from the database? If this is the case then it puts a huge > responsibility on the board to get it right first time. If you do get it right then that's great. If not then we are all in a bit of mess are we not? Could you say who is 'in the loop' on the license > drafting process and has seen each of the recent updates? Have any key external users or bulk data providers seen a recent draft of the license and given their support? What if a major end > user (Flickr) or major data provided (AND) has a problem with it? We will publish the license as soon as its gone through these final steps of legal review. That will precede the actual process of license adoption. We're not sure of the exact time frame yet, to be discussed this week. I am pleased that we will see the license prior to actual adoption. I think this will be very helpful. There's no loop. The license has been in the hands of lawyers, clarifying legal details. To be clear, I would expect that a number of people within OSM and the Foundation would review each draft of the license as produced by the lawyers. Can you say who sees each draft of the license who can confirm that it is heading in the right direction. > I understand from the above that the license will include the provision for an organisation to change the license subsequent to its agreement. It seems a very sensible provision but means we will > be placing considerable trust in that organisation. Will this be the OSMF or a different organisation, if so then which one? If it is the Foundation then we urgently need to address > the deficiencies in the articles of association which current give far to much control to one person. If it is another organisation then I assume you have thoroughly checked it out. This is under discussion, but have to reserve more details for the moment. It is likely not the Foundation. This core issue still seems to be up in the air which is unfortunate. The organisation, if it is not the Foundation, needs to be highly trusted to make only suitable changes over the long term and maintain the viral elements of the license. I suggest that the Foundation should be the host unless there is an obvious alternative stable alternative. If the foundation was the host, then we would need to appoint some really top-notch trustees to agree to any changes to the license, but I think we could now attract them. This would require changes to the articles of assoiciation, and possibly require the foundation to gain charity status, but that is very possible and could happen in the next few months. I would be happy to advice you on this. 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. I'm here to answer any questions. > Various questions have been asked on this list over
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] licensing working group report
Peter, > Possibly you could update timeline article to explain clearly how this > license will be implemented, and then we can assist you with that process. The plan is to work on the timeline at the next meeting. > To be clear, I would expect that a number of people within OSM and the > Foundation would review each draft of the license as produced by the lawyers. > Can you say who sees each draft of > the license who can confirm that it is heading in the right direction. Wilson Sonsini and Jordan Hatcher are currently finishing the draft. We'll all have access to it as soon as it's ready. > This core issue still seems to be up in the air which is unfortunate. The > organisation, if it is not the Foundation, needs to be highly trusted to make > only suitable changes over the long term and > maintain the viral elements of the license. I suggest that the Foundation > should be the host unless there is an obvious alternative stable alternative. Can't really say more about this at the moment. It's under discussion. However it ends up, the license must be in good hands, and maintained with all the spirit and intent of the license. That most certainly includes "viral" elements. > If the foundation was the host, then we would need to appoint some really > top-notch trustees to agree to any changes to the license, but I think we > could now attract them. This would require > changes to the articles of assoiciation, and possibly require the foundation > to gain charity status, but that is very possible and could happen in the > next few months. I would be happy to advice > you on this. Well that's a much larger and interesting suggestion, I think beyond the scope of what we're talking about here right now. > Can we not help on this draft and there does still seem to be a lot to do? > Our lawyer should be able to review the license with a 48 hours response time > against the Use Cases. We would be > happy to pay for this and make the results available to the community. It's nearly there. Let's just sit tight, let the Wilson Sonsini and Jordan Hatcher do their work over the next couple weeks. There will be thorough communications every step of the way. Might ask for some help from everyone on the wiki though, as there will be quite a lot to update there. > I would be happy to help. Great, that will be appreciated. Best Mikel___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] licensing working group report
From: Frederik Ramm > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Open_Issues > > And I'm also particularly interested to see how the license deals with > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_Licence/Use_Cases#Having_to_grant_access_to_pgsql_data_base > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_Licence/Use_Cases#Geocoding > > And in fact all the other stuff on the Use Cases page. From: Daniel Parry > > I'm interested particularly in: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_Licence/Use_Cases#Including_OSM_data_in_a_hand-made_map We'll have the draft of the new license in the coming weeks. We can then look in detail as these use cases. Will this first draft address every possible use case? No. But going forward, there will be a process in place to refine the license and address outstanding use cases. Best Mikel ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] licensing working group report
Hi Peter Yesterday we held the first meeting of the Licensing working group. At the last Foundation Board meeting before the holidays, we decided to convene a working group to expedite the final process of moving OSM to the new license. In attendance were Steve Coast and myself from the Board, Grant Slater from the technical team, and Jordan Hatcher, the lawyer who has been working on the ODL. > I had not heard of this working group before. Could you clarify who is on it, > what is the brief for the group and when it was formed? Has Steve's role in > this changed or is he still in charge of > the drafting process? Well pretty much what I said. We decided to form a working group at the last Foundation Board meeting to help usher the new license into existance and adoption. Steve, Grant and myself are on the working group. Jordan Hatcher was invited to the group due to his involvement in the ODL. Steve is chair of the group. Following this first version, a community of users and legal experts around the license will be developed to generate public comment and review, and work on refinements to the license. As the ODL evolves, OSM will be able to take on new revisions without the large task of getting re-licensing permission from our contributors. > To be clear. You saying that the full license text will only be available for > review by the community 'after' it has been released to the full user base > for acceptance? If so then it would seem that > the next we will see of the license will be a copy in our inbox and a request > to sign it or leave the project and have our data removed from the database? > If this is the case then it puts a huge > responsibility on the board to get it right first time. If you do get it > right then that's great. If not then we are all in a bit of mess are we not? > Could you say who is 'in the loop' on the license > drafting process and has seen each of the recent updates? Have any key > external users or bulk data providers seen a recent draft of the license and > given their support? What if a major end > user (Flickr) or major data provided (AND) has a problem with it? We will publish the license as soon as its gone through these final steps of legal review. That will precede the actual process of license adoption. We're not sure of the exact time frame yet, to be discussed this week. There's no loop. The license has been in the hands of lawyers, clarifying legal details. > I understand from the above that the license will include the provision for > an organisation to change the license subsequent to its agreement. It seems a > very sensible provision but means we will > be placing considerable trust in that organisation. Will this be the OSMF or > a different organisation, if so then which one? If it is the Foundation then > we urgently need to address > the deficiencies in the articles of association which current give far to > much control to one person. If it is another organisation then I assume you > have thoroughly checked it out. This is under discussion, but have to reserve more details for the moment. It is likely not the Foundation. 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. I'm here to answer any questions. > Various questions have been asked on this list over the past few months; I > won't repeat them, but I am sure people would welcome some answers. If they > are not addressed by the new l > license then it seems likely that they will be raised immediately afterwards > which will be more messy and may result in lower uptake. We understand the license won't be perfect when it's first released. But we must move forward. With everyone's help, refinements to the license for the next draft will address this questions. > Prior to release do update the wiki pages that relate to the new license? I > have added a new category 'Open Data Licence' to make it easier to locate > these pages. I suggest that in particular > you note on the Use Cases page which ones the license will allow and will not > allow. This will make it easier for end users to confirm that it is suitable > for their needs. > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Open_Data_Licence There will be thorough communications every step of the way. Might ask for some help from everyone on the wiki though, as there will be quite a lot to update there. > I wish the Foundation success in this important change. Thank you! Mikel___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] licensing working group report
> Peter Miller wrote: > Various questions have been asked on this list over the past few months; > I won't repeat them, but I am sure people would welcome some answers. I'm interested particularly in: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_Licence/Use_Cases#Including_OSM_data_in_a_hand-made_map At the moment, I'm assuming I can simply print on a map derived from the OSM data: map data CCbySA www.openstreetmap.org and not offend anyone / break any rules, but I'd prefer people who would be upset by this to shout before I commit to that approach...? Best wishes, Daniel -- --|---| Daniel David Parry: dd...@cam.ac.uk |--|-- "C++ will do for C what Algol-68 did for Algol." [David L. Jones] -- ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] licensing working group report
Hi, Peter Miller wrote: > Various questions have been asked on this list over the past few months; > I won't repeat them, but I am sure people would welcome some answers. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Open_Issues And I'm also particularly interested to see how the license deals with http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_Licence/Use_Cases#Having_to_grant_access_to_pgsql_data_base http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_Licence/Use_Cases#Geocoding And in fact all the other stuff on the Use Cases page. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] licensing working group report
On 15 Jan 2009, at 19:12, Mikel Maron wrote: Hello Yesterday we held the first meeting of the Licensing working group. At the last Foundation Board meeting before the holidays, we decided to convene a working group to expedite the final process of moving OSM to the new license. In attendance were Steve Coast and myself from the Board, Grant Slater from the technical team, and Jordan Hatcher, the lawyer who has been working on the ODL. I had not heard of this working group before. Could you clarify who is on it, what is the brief for the group and when it was formed? Has Steve's role in this changed or is he still in charge of the drafting process? The license is in final stages of drafting. The Foundation has solicited advice from the law firm of Wilson Sonsini, to have another set of eyes on the license. Wilson Sonsini and Jordan Hatcher are currently in discussion to finish the final draft. Following this first version, a community of users and legal experts around the license will be developed to generate public comment and review, and work on refinements to the license. As the ODL evolves, OSM will be able to take on new revisions without the large task of getting re-licensing permission from our contributors. To be clear. You saying that the full license text will only be available for review by the community 'after' it has been released to the full user base for acceptance? If so then it would seem that the next we will see of the license will be a copy in our inbox and a request to sign it or leave the project and have our data removed from the database? If this is the case then it puts a huge responsibility on the board to get it right first time. If you do get it right then that's great. If not then we are all in a bit of mess are we not? Could you say who is 'in the loop' on the license drafting process and has seen each of the recent updates? Have any key external users or bulk data providers seen a recent draft of the license and given their support? What if a major end user (Flickr) or major data provided (AND) has a problem with it? I understand from the above that the license will include the provision for an organisation to change the license subsequent to its agreement. It seems a very sensible provision but means we will be placing considerable trust in that organisation. Will this be the OSMF or a different organisation, if so then which one? If it is the Foundation then we urgently need to address the deficiencies in the articles of association which current give far to much control to one person. If it is another organisation then I assume you have thoroughly checked it out. 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. I'm here to answer any questions. Various questions have been asked on this list over the past few months; I won't repeat them, but I am sure people would welcome some answers. If they are not addressed by the new license then it seems likely that they will be raised immediately afterwards which will be more messy and may result in lower uptake. Prior to release do update the wiki pages that relate to the new license? I have added a new category 'Open Data Licence' to make it easier to locate these pages. I suggest that in particular you note on the Use Cases page which ones the license will allow and will not allow. This will make it easier for end users to confirm that it is suitable for their needs. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Open_Data_Licence I wish the Foundation success in this important change. Regards, Peter Best Mikel & the Licensing Working Group ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] licensing working group report
Hello Yesterday we held the first meeting of the Licensing working group. At the last Foundation Board meeting before the holidays, we decided to convene a working group to expedite the final process of moving OSM to the new license. In attendance were Steve Coast and myself from the Board, Grant Slater from the technical team, and Jordan Hatcher, the lawyer who has been working on the ODL. The license is in final stages of drafting. The Foundation has solicited advice from the law firm of Wilson Sonsini, to have another set of eyes on the license. Wilson Sonsini and Jordan Hatcher are currently in discussion to finish the final draft. Following this first version, a community of users and legal experts around the license will be developed to generate public comment and review, and work on refinements to the license. As the ODL evolves, OSM will be able to take on new revisions without the large task of getting re-licensing permission from our contributors. 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. I'm here to answer any questions. Best Mikel & the Licensing Working Group___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
